w
IT.
O
EC
i*
o
z
< -
s I
D 2
O =
r* -S"
THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
This edition is limited to 250 copies.
THE WAPENTAKE
OF WIRRAL
A History of the Royal Franchise of the
Hundred and Hundred Court of
Wirral in Cheshire
With
An Appendix containing a List of the Officers and Lords
of the Hundred from the Fourteenth Century ; a
Series of Leases of the Hundred from 1352
to 1786; and the Crown Grant of the
Lordship of the Hundred in 1820
BY
RONALD STEWART-BROWN
M.A., TRIN. COLL., CAMBRIDGE
LIVERPOOL
HENRY YOUNG & SONS
1907
DR
670
PREFACE
LITTLE more than fifty years ago, within the memory
of some now alive, there existed in Wirral a court of
so-called justice owned by a private individual and
upwards of a thousand years old. The power of sum-
moning jurors, of fining offenders, of deciding the law,
of ordering payment of debts, of levying distresses, has
so long been associated by the present generation with
courts administered by officials of the State, that it is
difficult to imagine such powers in the hands of a
private citizen. Yet for some years in the fifties the
inhabitants of Birkenhead, Tranmere, Bebington, Neston,
and other parts of Wirral went in daily fear of such a
court.
The only attempt at an account of the Wapentake
or Hundred Court of Wirral is contained in the last
chapter of Mrs. Gamlin's book " 'Twixt Mersey and Dee "
(Liverpool, 1897) and deals only with the last forty years
of the Court's existence. The author apparently obtained
most of her information from a small pamphlet entitled
"A Free Village Library, Bebington," published in 1878
for Mr. Joseph Mayer, F.S.A., containing the substance
of articles which had appeared in the Standard news-
v a 2
vi PREFACE
paper. Mrs. Gamlin's story, so far as it goes, is inter-
esting, and suggested the need of a fuller account, but
it contains many inaccuracies.
So extraordinary and incredible were these last years
of the Court that the writer of Mr. Mayer's pamphlet
classes the Wirral Wapentake with the " Cheiro-therium, "
traces of which were found near Bebington, and it was
the performances of such a mysterious and powerful
monster as he made it out to be that aroused my interest
and led me to make the investigations the results of which
are here set down.
The Hundred Courts of the County Palatine of Chester
have been neglected by the writers of Cheshire history.
One naturally turns first to the pages of Ormerod for
information, but that given by him is very meagre. The
Court of Wirral is dismissed with the bald and misleading
statement that in 1816 it was farmed under the Crown,
but it was no longer in existence. The accounts of those
of Broxton, Eddisbury, Northwich, and Nantwich are
scarcely any fuller. A little more detail is given of those
of Macclesfield and Bucklow, and in the latter case dates
and references to two Crown leases are given. In Mor-
timer's "History of the Hundred of Wirral," where one
would expect to find full details, very little more in-
formation is given as to the Court of that Hundred. He
prints (with many errors) a copy of the deed under
which it was granted in 1820 to John Williams, but
makes no attempt to carry the matter further. Sulley,
PREFACE vii
in his " Hundred of Wirral," makes no reference to the
Court at all. Other writers on Cheshire history either
ignore the Court entirely, or just mention its existence.
It will be seen, however, that there are in the Cheshire
Recognisance Rolls and Ministers' Accounts, and else-
where in the Record Office, a series of Leases and
records of the officers of the Hundred Court of Wirral
from the year 1352 down to the year 1820. It is true
that Ormerod refers to a few of the entries on the Recog-
nisance Rolls, but chiefly in footnotes and merely for the
purpose of recording the names of the office-holders for
genealogical purposes. I think I may claim to be the
first to make any extensive examination of the Cheshire
Ministers' Accounts for historical purposes. About 250
years have been examined. The series of leases have
never been dealt with before, which is remarkable in
view of the fact that they are leases of the " Hundred
of Wirral," upon which two special works have been
written.
As some of the oldest courts of justice in the king-
dom, the Hundred Courts seem to deserve fuller treat-
ment than has been given to them, and I have here
endeavoured to trace, from such records as exist, the
history of one. I am not aware that the devolution of
a Hundred franchise has ever been traced in detail before,
though a similar chain of documents might perhaps be
unrolled for other Hundreds. But very few Hundred
Courts were at all active after the end of the eighteenth
viii PREFACE
century, and it is more than doubtful if the last years
of the Wapentake of Wirral have any parallel.
My aim in writing this book has been, in the first
place, to make it an accurate record of facts ; and
though, as a secondary object, I have tried to make it
as readable as I could, from the very nature of the subject
it has not been possible to avoid some dry details and a
certain amount of legal technicality. At the risk of
making the narrative a little jerky, I have generally dealt
with events in chronological order.
To those to whom the ancient history of so prosaic
an institution as a law court may present little interest,
a suggestion is made. It is that they read Part II. of
this history first. If then, as can hardly fail to be the
case, after reading of the extraordinary events, some of
which took place little more than fifty years ago, they feel
any curiosity as to the origin and history of the legal
powers so grossly abused, the early part of this book
may, I hope, enable them to satisfy it.
One word as to the title of this book. The Hundreds
of Cheshire were never called Wapentakes, and that word
does not occur in any records of the Court of Wirral
except in the Act of Parliament abolishing it. But it has
been commonly used to describe it, and as the existence
of two works on the " Hundred of Wirral" renders that
title unavailable, I have been left to adopt one which,
historically, is perhaps inappropriate.
My thanks are due to Joseph Hoult, Esq., J.P., for
PREFACE ix
kindly allowing" me to see documents and deeds relat-
ing to the Wirral Manor House ; to Messrs. Roberts
and Martyn of Chester for readily allowing access to the
title-deeds from 1820 to the present date, and for some
interesting information ; to Mr. E. A. Roberts, the occu-
pant of the Manor House, for particulars of the Court-
house and for leave to photograph it ; to John Bingham,
Esq., for the photograph ; to Messrs. J. M. Quiggin and
Son for valuable information with regard to the events
subsequent to Samuel H. Moreton's death ; to William
Farrer, Esq., A. Ballard, Esq., B.A., LL.B., E. Stewart-
Brown, Esq., M.A., William Cooper, Esq., W. Fer-
gusson Irvine, Esq., F.S.A., Andrew Commins, Esq.,
LL.D., Robert Gladstone, Esq., Jun., B.C.L., M.A.,
Captain F. C. Beckett, Mr. Thomas Smith of Birkenhead,
and Mr. Thomas Field, for assistance in many details ;
to the Board of Treasury for particulars of the com-
pensation paid on the abolition of the Hundred Court ;
to the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land
Revenues ; and to many others who have kindly replied
to inquiries. The standard works on constitutional and
legal history have been laid under contribution, whilst the
Calendar of the Cheshire Recognisance Rolls has been
invaluable.
The collection of the information from the Record
Office, county histories, old newspapers, legal proceed-
ings, ancient inhabitants, and many other sources has been
no slight task. Mr. W. K. Boyd has taken great trouble
x PREFACE
and interest in making extracts for me from the Cheshire
Ministers' Accounts. Many of the entries are obscure,
but I have done my best to get at their meaning and
consulted persons of greater experience than myself. As
regards the last years of the Court's existence, I found
there are only very few persons living who have any
personal recollection of the facts connected with its aboli-
tion, and in a few years more many details would have
been lost for ever. There are gaps and omissions which
I should like to have avoided, and doubtless errors which
will be pointed out ; but I venture to hope they are not
serious, and that in spite of them the facts will be thought
worth recording.
R. STEWART-BROWN.
FAIROAKS,
BROMBOROUGH,
WIRRAL, November 1907.
M. A. = Ministers' Accounts (Cheshire).
C. R. R. = Cheshire Recognisance Rolls (Welsh Records).
C. P. R. = Cheshire Plea Rolls (Welsh Records).
CONTENTS
PAOK
PREFACE v
PART I
CHAP.
I. THE HUNDRED COURT I
II. FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES TO THE END OF THE
THIRTEENTH CENTURY 8
III. THE SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE . . 17
IV. THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF THE HUNDRED OF
WIRRAL FROM 1352 28
V. THE LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL AND
THEIR DUTIES, 1352-1402 39
VI. THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 52
VII. FROM HENRY VIII. TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY 67
PART II
VIII. THE LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 . . 84
IX. THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 1829-1853 . . 99
X. THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON . 107
XI. THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON
(continued) ........... 121
XII. THE MORETON WILL CASE 138
xi
xii CONTENTS
APPENDICES
PAGE
I. LIST OF OFFICERS AND LORDS OF THE HUNDRED OF
WIRRAL . „ . . . . . . • . . .161
II. DOCUMENTS, ETC. :—
(1) Farms of the Hundred of Wirral, 1352 175
(2) Lease of the Bedelry to Henry le Bruyn and Richard de Prest-
lond, 1391 177
(3) Lease of the Bedelry to Thomas de Waley, 1397 . . . .177
(4) Lease of the Bedelry to John de Saynesbury and Hugo de Brum-
burgh, 1403. . . . . 177
(5) Henry VI.'s Lease to Sir Thomas Stanley and others, 1445 . .178
(6) Henry VI I.'s Lease to Robert Trafford, 1507 178
(7) Henry VIII.'s Lease to John ap Ithell and James Bebynton, 1509 179
(8) Queen Elizabeth's Lease to Cuthbert Venables, 1596 . . . 179
(9) Charles I.'s Lease to William Trafford, 1628 181
(10) Charles I I.'s Lease to John Carter, 1662 185
(i I ) Charles I I.'s Lease to Thomas Dod, 1679 l%7
(12) Queen Anne's Lease to John Scorer, 1704 190
(13) George I I.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1734 192
(14) George I I.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1759 195
(15) Assignment of the Hundred to John Glegg, 1768 . . . .197
(16) George 1 1 I.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1786 198
(17) The Crown Grant to John Williams, 1820 199
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES 203
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 211
THE
WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
PART I
CHAPTER I
THE HUNDRED COURT
Meaning of Hundred and Wapentake — The Hundred Franchise — Civil and
Criminal jurisdiction — Forty Shillings limit — View of Frankpledge — Subjects
of Enquiry — The Judgers — The Affeerors — The Suitors — The Sheriff's Turn.
THE Hundred of Wirral is one of the seven Hundreds
of Cheshire, and is the name given to the narrow strip
of land which separates the Mersey from the Dee. The
object of the present work is to give a chronological
account, so far as it can be gathered from existing
records, of the Wapentake or Hundred Court of Wirral.
The history of the Hundred itself and its inhabitants
forms no part of the writer's scheme, and for it reference
must be made to other works.
After a brief explanation of the nature of a Hundred
Court, a few scattered references to that of Wirral will
be used to throw light on its history up to the middle
of the fourteenth century, when the records of Cheshire
really begin. For the following five hundred years it
2 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
will be possible to trace, almost without a break, the
many hands through which this Law Court passed, and
to follow it, through gradual decay from natural causes,
to a final spasm of scandalous activity, leading to its
ultimate extinction in our own times.
Before embarking, therefore, upon the details of the
history of the Court of Wirral, a short account of the
nature and jurisdiction of a Wapentake or Hundred
Court will first be given. A scientific or critical exami-
nation will not be attempted, but only sufficient will
be set down to enable the reader to appreciate what
is subsequently related.
All our Courts of justice doubtless had their origin
in the natural instinct of men to meet together for the
discussion of their affairs, for their mutual defence, and
for the settlement of their disputes. The development
of such meetings into organised and periodical Folk-
moots, and their subdivisions into village meetings,
tribal meetings, and national assemblies, each under its
recognised leader, have been exhaustively dealt with by
many writers ; and it is sufficient to say, with regard
to pre-Anglo-Saxon times, that the Hundred Courts
(to take the subdivision with which we are here con-
cerned), undoubtedly originated in primitive meetings,
generally in the open air, of bodies of persons having
community of interests by reason of local residence.
The origin of Hundreds and Wapentakes is mainly
a matter of speculation upon which a great deal has
THE HUNDRED COURT 3
already been written, and no attempt will here be made to
discuss it. The division of England into Hundreds per-
haps dates from the seventh or eighth century, and both
Hundreds and Wapentakes1 are mentioned in the laws of
Edgar (A.D. 959-975), by which time the term " hundred "
had lost all numerical significance. For present pur-
poses " hundreds" and " wapentakes" may be treated
as synonymous, and meaning territorial divisions of a
shire. A shire was divided into so many hundreds or
wapentakes, each of the latter comprising so many
vills or townships.
In Anglo-Saxon times the two principal local courts
of justice in the shire were a Hundred Court for each
Hundred or Wapentake, and the Shire Court for the
whole county. The profits of jurisdiction in the former
(with which alone we have to deal) were a Royal per-
quisite or franchise and belonged to the King, but
frequently were granted to individuals or churches.
The possession or Lordship of a Hundred did not imply
any rights of property in the land within the Hundred,
but only a liberty or franchise to hold the Hundred
Court and to exercise certain rights and privileges in
connection with it. The periodical gatherings together
of the men of the Hundred for judicial and military
purposes became so identified with the district as to
be called "the Hundred," or "the Wapentake," and so
1 Wapentake = the taking stock and count of the weapons of the able-bodied
men of the district — a weapon-showing or local muster (Latin Monstrare, to show).
4 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
those expressions came to be used to mean either the
district or the Court.
A Hundred Court had both civil and criminal juris-
diction within the Hundred. In Anglo-Saxon days folk-
right and custom would be declared at the sittings of the
Court and the law expounded to the people of the
Hundred. The profits of the Court were collected for the
King by the royal " reeve" or bailiff of the Hundred.
The Court would be presided over, or at any rate con-
vened, by the Hundred-man or head of the Hundred.
As regards civil jurisdiction, a Hundred Court exer-
cised practically the same authority in the Hundred
as the Court Baron did in the manor. Besides con-
troversies respecting land, it entertained personal suits
for debt, trespass, &c., originally to any amount, but in
the reign of Edward I. a limit of forty shillings1 was
placed on all suits in inferior courts, such as those
of the Hundred and County.
The criminal jurisdiction of the Court after the
Norman conquest was exercised in the Court Leet and
View of Frankpledge, and the Sheriff's Tourn. One of
the original objects of the View was to inspect the free-
men of the Hundred to see that each was present and
had the necessary sureties for his good conduct. In
course of time this safeguard for the peace of the
1 Probably by the effect of the Stat. of Gloucester, 1278. This sum, equal to
about £30 of our money, of course then represented a far larger jurisdiction than
in later years. The limit existed when the Courts were abolished in the nineteenth
century, and was no doubt one of the many causes contributing to their decay.
THE HUNDRED COURT 5
Hundred lost its significance, but the necessity of attend-
ing the Court remained, and suitors who neglected to do
so were fined.
Beside the viewing of the freeholders, and after it
became obsolete, the criminal business of the Court con-
sisted in judicial enquiries into a variety of matters,
including certain crimes and misdemeanours in the
Hundred, minor breaches of the peace, and offences
against public trade. Among the subjects of enquiry
were encroachments, stoppage of ways, housebreakers,
thieves, affrays, escapes, forgers, treasure trove, breakers
of the assize of bread and ale, false measures and
weights, and two classes of persons whom we still meet
with, namely, "such as continually haunt taverns and no
man knoweth whereon they do live," and "such as sleep
by day and walk by night, and eat and drink well and
have nothing."1 The more serious offences were only
punishable in the Royal Courts.
The judges or "judgers" of the Court were twelve
"good and law-worthy" (legalis] men of the Hundred,
usually yeomen with a sprinkling of knights and persons
of standing. The method of business was that these
"judgers," and also any of the suitors who knew of the
commission of any offence, "presented," or publicly
notified, the offender at the Court. If the offence was
proved, he was placed "in mercy" and either fined or
made to give sureties for his behaviour, or the offence was
1 Stat. de Visu Franciplegii 18 Edward II.
6 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
reported to the Royal Courts for punishment. The
essential difference between this body of "judgers " and
the modern jury was that the "judgers" were chosen
for their local knowledge, and presented offences which
they personally knew to have been committed. They
were not, like the modern jury, simply judges of facts of
which they had, in theory, no previous knowledge.
The amercements were assessed by two suitors termed
1 ' affeerors, " whose duties will be explained on a later
page.1 Persons under twelve and over sixty, and women,
were excused from attendance, but all others resident
in the Hundred were bound to be present, or to give
satisfactory "essoynes" or excuses. These were the
"suitors." At a later date (in the reign of Henry III.)
prelates, clergymen, and peers were exempted, and suitors
were permitted to appoint attorneys to do suit for them.
The Court sat monthly and was presided over by the
Bailiff or Steward of the Hundred, and the profits went
to the owner of the Hundred. Twice a year, however,
after Easter and Michaelmas, the Sheriff of the County
would go on his "Tourn," or circuit, and preside at the
Leet. It was probably only at these two sittings of the
Court that suit and service was due, and consequently
the Court would be more largely attended than at the
monthly sittings. The fines and fees on these two days
went to the Crown or to the Sheriff if he farmed his
office.
1 See post, page 112.
THE HUNDRED COURT 7
The criminal or police jurisdiction of the Hundred
Courts gradually became of less importance consequent
upon the establishment of Justices of the Peace with
concurrent jurisdiction, and the holding of assizes and
quarter sessions ; and the Court survived to modern
times practically only as a Court of limited civil
jurisdiction.
CHAPTER II
FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES TO THE END OF THE
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
The Hundred Court of Wirral — Wilaveston the meeting place — Predomesday
times — Domesday references — The Hundred Court in Norman Days —
Exemptions from attendance — Birkenhead Priory — Launcelyn of Poulton —
Earl Randle's Charter of Liberties — Manor of Neston.
AFTER having thus very briefly, and without reference to
chronology, sketched the nature and jurisdiction of a
Hundred Court, we may turn to the history of that of
Wirhael, Wyrehale, or Wirral, as it was variously spelt at
different periods.
In spite of the absence or scanty nature of early
records, there can be no doubt that the Hundred Court
of Wirral existed in an organised form a thousand years
and more ago. As one of the Hundreds of Cheshire,
Wilaveston or Wilaston (as Wirral was anciently called)
would have its Mote which, possibly, at some very early
time may have met at Thingwall, the Danish "meeting
town" near Thurstaston. The name "Wilaveston"
itself probably refers to the meeting place of the
Hundred. Every Hundred had an appointed place of
assembly, from which it frequently derived its name.
Many Hundreds bear the name of a village within their
FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES 9
borders ; others derived their name from meeting at a
prominent object such as a well-known stone, barrow, or
hill. The old Cheshire Hundreds chiefly fell within the
latter class.1 Probably the meeting place for Wirral was
at a stone near where the village of Willaston later
sprang up. Whether the stone was named after some
one called Witlaf,2 or became known as the Wirhael-
stone, and hence Wilaveston, is a matter of conjecture.
The existence of such a stone in approximately the
centre of the Hundred, and the derivation from it of the
name of the Hundred were suggested some years ago by
another writer3 to whom, however, the idea that it was
the meeting place of the Hundred-mote does not seem
to have occurred.
The Hundred of Wilaveston comprised upwards of
fifty vills or townships, for the most part lying in
modern Wirral, but including five which are now part
of the Hundred of Broxton, viz., Upton, Picton, Wervin,
Trafford, and Guilden Sutton. Each of these townships
would be represented at the Hundred-mote by their
reeve and four chief men. The Hundred-man would
probably be nominated either by the King or by the Earl
of Mercia, and would be assisted by twelve freeholders
1 e.g. Bucklow, Exestan, Dudestan, Warmundestrov, Atiscros, &c., see Brownbill,
"Cheshire in Domesday Book." Hist. Soc. of L. & C., vol. xv., N.S. i.
For instances of Hundreds elsewhere, see Stubbs' Const. Hist, i., 119-20,
Ballard's "The Domesday Inquest," and Gomme on " Primitive Folk Moots."
a As Mr. Brownbill thinks. See his paper already referred to.
8 W. H. Black, F.S.A., Report on Foreshore Rights, 1868. There is reason to
believe the stone exists under one of the farm houses in the village.
io THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
of the Hundred in administering justice. By them the
law of England and the customs of the Hundred would
be declared, whilst questions of fact would be tried by
compurgation and ordeal. The profits of the Court
would be divided between the King and the Earl, the
latter taking one third as the "3rd penny of the
County."
From Domesday Book it appears that in the time
of Edward the Confessor the pleas of the County
Court and of the Hundred Courts of Cheshire1 were
farmed (or leased) by one Mondret (who also farmed
the City of Chester) for ,£50, and one mark of gold.
We also learn from Domesday Book that the magis-
trates of the City of Chester were bound to attend the
sittings of the Hundred Court and were fined xos. if
they were absent without reasonable excuse, the fine
being shared between the King and the Earl.2
When, upon the conquest of England, William I.
became feudal owner of the whole country, he conse-
quently became Lord of all Hundreds and entitled to
the revenues of all the Hundred Courts. These royal
franchises in the case of most Hundreds remained
vested in the Crown for generations, though in some
cases the Lordship was sold or granted outright. The
Hundreds of Cheshire, however, were part of the pos-
1 The pleas from the cantred of Inglefield were excepted.
2 "Siquis de Hundret remanebat die quo sedebat sine excusatione manifest;!,
x solidis emendabat inter regem et comitem."
FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES n
sessions given by the Conqueror to the Norman Earls
of Chester, and remained alienated from the Crown,
until, upon the death of John Scot, Earl of Chester, in
1237, Henry III. took the earldom back into the hands
of the Crown, created his son Edward Earl of Chester,
and granted to him, amongst other things, all the
Hundreds and Hundred Courts possessed by the
Norman Earls of the County.1
The Court of Wirral up to the time of the Con-
queror would be attended by such of the Abbots and
Priors of the county as possessed lands in the Hundred
and had no charter of exemption. Ecclesiastical suits
would be tried there, and possibly the Bishop sat with
the Sheriff to assist him to decide them. William I.
very soon removed all such pleas into the ecclesiastical
courts. But the Church dignitaries who owned lands
in the Hundred, and their tenants, would still be obliged,
as a rule, to attend and do suit and service, though in
many cases we shall find they were excused. The
attendance of ecclesiastics at the Hundred Courts was
entirely abolished in the last years of Henry III.2
Whilst the Hundred of Wilaveston was under the
Norman Earls, the Court would be an important asset
in their hands, both as a check on the undue growth
in influence of the Abbot of St. Werburgh and the
Prior of Birkenhead, and as a source of revenue.
1 See Ormerod (1882), i. 150, where the deed is printed.
a Stat. of Marlborough, 1267.
12 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
There are very few records relating to the Court at
these early dates. But we may feel sure that the
Hundred-man and some of the freeholders formed
part of the jury whose oath supplied to the King's
Commissioners the details required for their survey of
the Hundred contained in Domesday Book. The in-
formation there given, however, relates to the fiscal
resources of the Hundreds, and the organisation and
jurisdiction of the Hundred Courts are not explained.
One of the earliest reminders of the existence of
the Court of Wirral arises out of the strong religious
feeling of the times, which made it of importance to
gain the goodwill of the Church, for which purpose many
privileges were granted. During the twelfth century
one of the Randies, Earl of Chester, granted to the
Prior of Birkenhead and to his monks that they and
their freemen should be free and quit of the burden
of paying suit to the Hundred Court of Wilaveston.
Apparently the monks used to pay to the Sheriff eight-
pence (as Sheriff's aid, or perhaps in lieu of attendance
at the Turn), and of this also they were relieved. Many
years afterwards, in the reign of Edward III., the Prior
of Birkenhead was called upon to prove his right to
this exemption, and produced the charter from Earl
Randle as evidence. It also appears from this enquiry
that the Prior had been improperly holding a Court
for the enforcement amongst his tenants of the assize
of bread and beer, offences against which were only
FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES 13
presentable at the Hundred Court in the absence of a
grant of special power to do so in a manorial Court.
The Prior disclaimed any right to do this,1 and it was
ordered that the privilege be taken into the hands of
the Earl, so that the Prior's tenants offending against
the assize might be in attendance at the Turn of the
Sheriff in the Hundred Court. The Prior was amerced
for his presumption.2
Privileges similar to those granted to the Birkenhead
Priors were also granted to the Abbot of St. Werburgh,
and to the monks of Dieulacres ; and in the reign of
Henry III. we find the local Bishop (then of Lichfield
and Coventry) claiming a general exemption for him-
self and tenants from attendance at the Hundred
Courts.3
Favoured individuals also obtained these privileges.
Robert Launcelyn of Poulton-in-Wirral was granted by
Randle Meschines, one of the Norman Earls of Chester,
exemption, for himself and his tenants of the Manors of
Poulton and Nether Bebington, from attendance both
at the Hundred and Shire Courts. This charter was
pleaded by one of the family in the reign of Edward III.,
1 A right to enforce the assize in his Court at Shotwick had been successfully
set up by the Abbot in the reign of Edward II., noted p. 64, vol. xix.-xx., N. S.,
Trans. Hist. Soc. of Lanes, and Ches.
2 The plea is badly printed in Ormerod (1882), vol. ii. 462. It is there noted
that this plea to quo warranto contains perhaps the last instance of the use of the
name of " Wilaston" for " Wirral." A marginal note in the plea seems to have been
necessary at that date to explain their identity.
3 Quo warranto. Hen. III.
i4 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
and the Sheriff ordered to allow the privilege.1 Another
exempted person in Wirral was Sir William Troutbeck
of Dunham who, in the reign of Henry VI., claimed for
himself and his tenants of the Manors of Little Neston
and Hargrave, freedom from all suit to the Hundred
Court, a privilege no doubt dating from Norman times.2
Mention must also be made of a comprehensive
charter granted by one of the Randies to a William Fitz
Gerard which, besides freeing him from suit of court
both for County and Hundred throughout all the Earl's
lands, granted to him house bote, hay bote, and fire
bote, with license to purchase land.3
Early in the thirteenth century the third Randle,
Earl of Chester, gave a general charter4 of privileges
to his barons which will be referred to again later on.
Amongst other things, it provided that if any "judger"
(or juror) or any suitor of the Hundred or County Court
should be amerced in the Earl's Court, the "judger"
should go free on payment of two shillings, and the
1 Cheshire Plea Rolls, 4 & 5 Ed. III. m. 12. The same charter was exhibited
temp. Hen. VII. by William Launcelyn, additional information being- given that the
charterers were only to answer for offences before the Chief Justice of Chester, and
that Robert Launcelyn was to give the Earl one bay charger. C. P. R. undated but
20 Hen. VII. m. 16.
' Ormerod (1882), ii. 39. Exemption from service on juries of the Hundred and
County Court was granted to Hamo de Mascy on account of the good service done
for the Earl of Gascony and especially at the battle of Poictiers (C. P. R. 36-39 Ed.
III. m. 7); also to Sir John Massy (C. P. R. 46 & 47 Ed. III. m. 21) and to many
others.
3 C. P. R. ii & 12 Ed. II. m. 4d.
• Pat. Roll. 28 Ed. I.
FROM ANGLO-SAXON TIMES 15
suitor on payment of twelve pence, a provision illustrat-
ing the relative importance of such persons. An im-
portant concession was made by giving each baron
liberty to defend all his manors and lordships in the
Hundred and County Courts by having his own steward
present there to represent his interests.
It was customary to promulgate laws and ordinances
at the Hundred Court. Magna Carta must have been
there proclaimed, and another instance occurred, upon
the passing, in 1275, of the batch of laws known as the
statutes of Westminster, when Edward I. issued a man-
date by letters patent1 to the Justiciar of Chester to cause
these laws to be read and solemnly proclaimed in each
of the Hundred Courts, and in the County Court, the
cities, boroughs, and vills merchant of the shire.
Lands were often held from the Crown under the
obligation of furnishing a "judger" at the royal and
local courts. The only case in Wirral found by the
writer is revealed by the enquiry held on the death, in
1278, of Robert de Montalt, one of a line of Cheshire
barons who were hereditary stewards of the earldom.
We learn that he held the manor of Neston in Wirral
from the King in capite by the service of rinding a
"judger " for the County Court and for the Court of the
Hundred of Wilaveston.2
The Hundred Court had no jurisdiction over the
1 Pat. Roll. 3 Ed. I.
2 Williamson's Villare Cest.
1 6 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Forest of Wirral and all pleas relating to forest law and
custom were dealt with at the Forest Eyres by royal
justices. We may infer, perhaps, that during the period
of Wirral's afforestation, the Hundred Court would not
be very largely attended.
CHAPTER III
THE SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE
Police system of the Earls of Chester — Grand Serjeant — Handle's charter —
Serjeants of Wirral — Farms of Hundred Courts — The bedell and bailiff-
Abuses — Inquisition, temp. Edward III.
SUCH are the very scanty references and facts that can
be gathered together with regard to the history of the
Court up to the commencement of the fourteenth century.
Soon after that date material becomes more abundant.
But before we plunge into it, an outline of the police
system of the Earls of Chester is necessary in order to
appreciate the position of the officials whom we shall
find controlled the Hundred Courts.
Before the institution of justices of the peace the
preservation of law and order was entrusted to certain
palatine officers, called Serjeants of the peace, under
the control of a Grand Serjeant. These Serjeants,
attended by a staff of assistants, known as bedells,
perambulated the Hundreds, taking cognisance of all
offences against the peace. They had power to arrest
offenders, and in early days might instantly behead
them, if caught in the act, or if sufficient evidence was
immediately forthcoming, and claim a fee of a shilling
'? B
1 8 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
a head from the Earl l ; otherwise they had to present
the robber or wrongdoer for judgment at the Hundred
Court, or before the Earl's justice. Their duties also
included making proclamations, the execution of attach-
ments and distresses, and the service of summonses
and writs. The expense of the maintenance (called
"putura") of these Serjeants and their retinue lay upon
the Hundred, or rather upon certain of its inhabitants.
We find that only those persons who resided on what
were called "Warelands" or "Warlands" were bound
to afford this maintenance in rotation. The exact nature
of "Warlands" (from wara = ward) has been the subject
of much discussion,2 but as this was chiefly in connec-
tion with its use in Domesday Book, it is not neces-
sary to refer to it here. "Wara" means defence or
protection,3 and in Domesday seems to have been
applied to lands which " defended" or exonerated other
lands from payment of the Danegeld by taking over
the liability and having their own assessment increased.
This does not at first seem to be relevant to the
"Warlands" of Cheshire in the thirteenth and four-
teenth centuries, but the connection may be found in
a not unwarrantable assumption* that after the geld
1 The heads were exhibited at Chester Castle, temp. Edward I. Harl. MSS.
2115, 2074, 232. For an instance of the payment of the fee to Sir Richard Sutton
and Isabella his wife, see M. A. 771.
2 "Villainage in England" (Vinogradoff), i. 241 ; "Feudal England" (Round),
117, and elsewhere.
8 See "Borough Customs" (Selden Soc.), vol. ii. clix., and "Feudal England"
(loc. «'/.)
4 Suggested to the writer by Mr. Ballard, and concurred in by Prof. Vinogradoff.
SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE 19
ceased to be levied in the twelfth century, the term
"warland" perhaps became used simply to mean lands
which acquitted other lands of any renders or pay-
ments ; and thus was applied to those lands in the
Hundred from which alone puture for the Serjeants of
the peace, or forest Serjeants, could be exacted.1
From a record of the reign of Edward I. it appears
that the lowest kind of warland in Cheshire contained
an acre, and that no puture (for the forest Serjeants at
least) could be exacted from tenants of less.2 Payment
in kind, food, drink, corn, dogs-meat, &c., constituted
the original "puture," but in course of time it was
commuted into a monetary payment.
During their rounds, the Serjeants and bedells had
to take "pot luck," and were only entitled to demand
such meat and drink as might happen to be in the
house when they visited it. Only two, or at the most
three, of the party would be billeted upon each house,
and after a supper, a night's rest, and a morning
meal, they had to move on again, leaving that house
free from the obligation until its turn came round
again.3
There seems to have been originally twenty Serjeants
1 "Warland" in Cheshire seems to be the same as "terra puturae": cf. pleas
of Baron of Dunham Massy (Harl. MSS. 2008), and of Baron of Halton (Ormerod
(1882), i. 703).
2 Plea of forester of Delamere (31 Ed. I.), Harl. MSS. 2115, 232, and printed
Ormerod (1882), ii. 109.
3 A similar kind of system to the " firma unius noctis " of Domesday, and the
4 ' gwestva " of Wales.
20 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
(with, of course, numerous sub-servients) for the whole
of Cheshire, but the charter of Randle the third,
already mentioned, reduced the number in time of
peace to twelve, with one horse for the Master Serjeant
(for which free provender could only be claimed between
Easter and Michaelmas by courtesy), though in time of
war the number of the Serjeants was to be regulated
by the advice of the barons and the judges. An
attempt to remove a grievance may be recognised in
the statement in this charter that the Serjeants were no
longer to exact gifts or sheaves of corn as part of their
board and lodging.1 The dignity and jurisdiction of
the great barons, to be mentioned later, was safe-
guarded by a provision that the Earl's Serjeants were
not to eat in any of their manor houses, or to exact
board and lodging from them.
The Grand Serjeanty of Cheshire was a hereditary
office held by the Suttons and other barons of Malpas.
But the jurisdiction of the Grand Serjeant does not seem
to have included either Macclesfield or Wirral.2 The
Serjeanty of the former was held at the commencement
of the thirteenth century by one Adam de Sutton, but
about 1 220 it was granted to the Davenport family,3
while the exemption of Wirral from the general system
1 Cf. the provision in the Forest Charter of Hen. III., that the bedells are not to
take scotale or sheaves improperly.
• Harl. MSS. 2155, f. 75.
3 The charter is printed in Earwaker's " East Cheshire," ii. 379. See also Orme-
rod's "Cheshire " (1882), iii. 61.
SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE 21
perhaps arose from the fact that in these times it was
under forest law. A similar system of Serjeants for the
forests of Cheshire was in force (those in Wirral being
under the control of the Storetons, and the Stanleys at
a later date), and their perambulations were no doubt
sufficient in those days for the preservation of order in
Wirral in times of peace. At any rate, we find that one
of the Randies, Earl of Chester, granted a charter1 to
the freemen of Wirral acquitting them from all liability
to feed Serjeants of the peace, but preserving the obli-
gation to do so in respect to the forest Serjeants through-
out the whole Hundred, except in the manors of the
Abbot of Chester (Eastham, Bromborough, Irby, and
Sutton), whose position in Wirral was perhaps at this
time almost equal to that of the great barons in other
parts of Cheshire. This charter, however, still kept
Wirral liable to find and maintain as many as twelve
Serjeants if any business rendering them necessary should
arise. On the de-afforestation of Wirral, the necessity
for a serjeant with a staff of bedells again arose, though
the Serjeanty had become by then merely a nominal posi-
tion, sometimes included in the farm of the Hundred.
Each of the great barons of Cheshire had his own
organisation of Serjeants and bedells, who exercised,
within the limit of their lord's district, much the same
jurisdiction as the Serjeants of the Earl. A great deal of
documentary evidence exists, but cannot be dealt with
1 Pat. Roll, 28 Ed. I.
22 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
here, illustrating in the most ample manner what were
the duties and privileges of these baronial Serjeants, and
has been used to throw light upon those of the Earl's
Serjeants, which would certainly not be less important.1
The manner in which the close connection of the
bedells with the Hundred Court and their control of it
seems to have arisen must next be traced.
As the representative of the Earl of Chester, the
Sheriff was responsible for the revenue of the county, and
had to render account, at the Earl's exchequer at Chester,
for the income of the Earl's demesnes and franchises.
To assist in the collection and realisation of this revenue,
various officers were appointed, escheators, vendors of
the goods of felons, and many others.
The profits from the Hundred Courts of the County
Palatine contributed a large annual sum, and its col-
lection was placed in the hands of the officers of the
Hundred. In many cases the revenue would be simply
collected by " approvers," but a system grew up of
farming out the right to collect the profits of the Hun-
dred Court to the bedells or to the bailiffs. Such farms
carried with them either the whole or portions of the
issues of the Hundred, for which the lessee paid a yearly
rent, and when he took the whole profits, he naturally
used to preside by himself or a steward in the Hundred
1 See Ormerod's " Cheshire" (1882), vol. ii. 703 (Halton) ; iii. 61 (Davenport) ; ii.
601 (Malpas) ; iii. 187 (Kinderton) ; i. 526 (Dunham) ; iii. 790 (Stockport) ; ii. 108 (Dela-
mere). Also, Earwaker's "East Cheshire," i. 345; ii. 3-7.
SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE 23
Court. After paying his rent, he made what profit he
could out of the fees and amercements or so much of
them as he had leased. If he farmed the whole revenue,
the bedell became, for the term of his lease, to all intents
and purposes lord of the Hundred, and as such would
naturally be a person of considerable importance and
influence in the county ; and his position must not
be confused with the lowly one of the mere sheriffs
officer, whose chief business is to serve writs and levy
executions.
It is not surprising to find the bedells as farmers of
the Hundred. The Serjeants of the peace (whose assis-
tants they were) had the duty of presenting offenders at
the Hundred Court, and were, we shall find, rewarded
with a portion of the profits. No doubt, in process of
time, the bedells became localised officials in each Hun-
dred, the Court of which they would regularly attend.
Its business would to a considerable extent depend upon
their activity, and it is therefore natural to find them
leasing an office, the profits of which their own exertions
could largely augment. The office of bedell seems
nearly always to have been held in conjunction with that
of the bailiff of the Hundred, who was an official of the
Earl, charged with the execution in the Hundred of the
royal and palatine writs and commissions. He perhaps
also assisted to collect subsidies and taxes. He does not
seem to have taken much part in the local administration
of justice in the Hundred Courts, but from the fact that
24 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the same person nearly always held both offices, it is
very difficult to draw a defining line between the duties
of bedell and bailiff. But it is the bedell who always
appears on the Sheriff's accounts in connection with the
issues of the Hundred, whilst we shall find that it is to
the bailiff that all royal commissions and orders affecting
the Hundred are always directed. In course of time
the two offices practically merged, and we find frequent
mention of one single " office of bailiff or bedell." No
one could, of course, be forced to take a lease of either
office, but there is ground for thinking that the "ap-
provers " were sometimes appointed without regard to
their wishes, and were bound to serve a term of office.
We have, for example, the case of William Partridge, to
whom, as a special favour, having fallen from his high
estate, letters patent l were granted by the Prince of
Wales exempting him, on account of his poverty, from
being appointed a sheriff's bailiff, bedell, or "catchpol"
in any Hundred of Cheshire.
The farming of these offices led to great hardship in
many parts of England, both on the Sheriffs and on the
county. Each shire was assessed to a certain rent or
farm, for the collection of which the Sheriff was personally
responsible. Each Hundred was rated to this farm,
which was occasionally raised by royal surveyors. In
some cases the Sheriff himself used to let the profits of
1 C. R. R. (1401), No. 75, m. i, d. i. A good description of the bedell, both as
farmer and approver, is given in Rot. Hund. ii. 204-5.
SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE 25
the Hundreds at a higher rate than that at which they
were assessed, the farmers in their turn having to exact
the increase in some way out of the people. In other
cases, in spite of the raising of the farm of the shire,
there would be in existence leases by the Crown of the
Hundreds at the old rent ; but the Sheriff, notwithstand-
ing, was made responsible for the increased assessment,
which he had to account for either out of his own pocket
or, more usually, by exactions from the people of the
Hundred. Various laws1 were passed to remedy these
and similar grievances, the effect of which was to prevent
the sale or gift outright of a Hundred, and also to prohibit
leases except through the Sheriff of the county and at
the rent for which he was responsible ; the rents were also
to be reduced to the amounts which formerly had been
paid. Stringent inquiries were held from time to time
into the conduct of the sheriffs and bailiffs of the kingdom,
and many were dismissed for misbehaviour.
These abuses principally took place in the thirteenth
century, and, owing to the date when the regular palatine
records begin, there is little to show whether they occurred
in Cheshire as in other counties. There can, however, be
no doubt that they did, and continued to do so, and that
the Hundreds of Cheshire were farmed by the Earls and
their Sheriffs in a burdensome manner. This would be
the easier because the laws of the rest of the kingdom
could not be enforced in the county, and the remedial
1 2 Ed. III. c. 12 ; 14 Ed. III. c. 9, &c.
26 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
measures referred to would have little or no effect in it.
Moreover, we find that in the reign of Edward II. three
justices itinerant were appointed to inquire into the
behaviour of the palatine bailiffs and ministers, a com-
mission doubtless rendered necessary by their exactions
and abuse of office. In other ways, too, the proceedings
of the officials had frequently to be looked into. The loss
or misappropriation of the fees payable in the Hundred of
Macclesfield in lieu of puture was the subject of inquiries
in 1281 1 and I283,2 and in 1357 we find Edward III.
addressing a letter3 to the Justice of Chester commanding
him to summon the Serjeants of the peace, as it was
alleged they had leased their offices to undutiful persons
who were slack in maintaining the King's peace and even
concealed the commission of trespasses. The way in
which the officers of the Hundreds abused their position
is clearly shown by an inquisition4 in the reign of Edward
III. The freeholders (or charterers) of the county of
Cheshire complained of undue oppressions and extortions
practised by the bedells (who were sometimes called
Serjeants of the Chamber). It seems that up to the
time of Edward I. and Robert de Bulkyleigh, Sheriff of
Chester, the bedells had served their summonses in person,
certified by the testimony of two freeholders at the Courts,
but subsequently the bedells had forced the freeholders to
serve the summonses, and took fines from them of one,
1 Pat. Roll, 9 Ed. I. i. 471. 2 Pat. Roll, II Ed. I. ii. 76.
3 Close Roll, i Ed. III. i. 226. « C. P. R. 4 & 5 Ed. III. m. 15.
SERJEANTS AND BEDELLS OF THE PEACE 27
two, or three pence that they should not be sent to do so
far from home. Later on, the bedells, growing bolder,
not only delivered to the freeholders the panells of names
directed to them by the Sheriff, but other panells of un-
limited names, and forced the freeholders to serve the
summonses both within and without the Hundred in
which they lived under pain of a fine. The Justice of
Chester endeavoured to avoid holding this inquiry as he
saw it would tend to the great decrease of the revenue of
the Sheriff, but he was forced to proceed. In the result
it was decided that the freeholders were bound to serve
the summonses, but only in their own Hundred, and for
panells of twenty-four names ; and that they could only be
called upon to testify to the service at the next sitting of
the Court. No freeholder was to be called upon to serve
a second summons1 until all others in the Hundred had
served in turn, and the bedells were no longer to take
gifts, such as straw for thatching (thiggyng] or casual
meals (fulcenale)* but were only entitled to their puture
in the houses of persons residing on Warlands.
1 The summons in the case of the neighbouring Hundred Court of Eddisbury was
anciently performed by a messenger, who bore a large oaken ball, perforated and
slung on a leather thong, the ends of which were fixed on an iron bar. After summon-
ing one township, the messenger was met on the limits of the next by another man, to
whom he transferred the summons and the ball, which were sent in this manner round
the Hundred. Ormerod (1882), ii. 4.
2 Professor Skeat thinks " thiggyng" is the Anglo-Saxon " thiging " = the taking
of anything to eat or drink (N. & Q. 10 S. viii. 92) ; but for reasons given in N. & Q,
10 S. viii. 296, the writer thinks it is Anglo-Saxon " theccan " = straw or thatch. The
writer adopts Professor Skeat's view at the former reference that " fulcenale " may be
translated as " a casual lunch." Similar kinds of exactions by bedells and forest
officers were " filctale," or field-ale, and " sothale," or "scotale."
CHAPTER IV
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF THE HUNDRED
OF WIRRAL FROM 1352
Decline of the Hundred Courts — Their sources of revenue — Pelf— The Sheriff's
accounts — The issues of the bedelry — Prison suit — Waifs — The rents of Wirral,
1352-1445.
THE development of the system of itinerant justices and of
trial by jury would in a very great measure detract from
the importance of the Hundred Courts by removing the
more important criminal cases from their jurisdiction, and
in common with other Hundred Courts, we can date the
decline of that of Wirral from the rise in power of the
justices of the peace, the establishment of quarter sessions,
and the changes and improvements in the general judicial
system effected in the time of Henry III., although all
these did not have their full effect in the County Palatine.
This decay of the ancient Courts is amply evidenced by the
petitions presented in 1376 to the Good Parliament. It is
clear from them that the Hundred Courts of the kingdom
were being held irregularly, without due notice, and at
other than the usual periods. Only a short time before it
had become necessary to re-enact 1 the provisions of Magna
Charta that the sittings of the Sheriffs Turn should only
1 31 Ed. III. c. 15.
28
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF WIRRAL 29
be held after Easter and Michaelmas, owing to the practice
of Sheriffs of holding it at Lent or at the end of August,
seasons set apart for devotion and harvest ; but the peti-
tions show the Sheriffs View of Frankpledge was still
being demanded at other times, and that the evils produced
by excessive farming were still alive.
From this point onward the decline becomes more
rapid, and the Hundred Court gradually becomes a
tribunal devoted mainly to the regulation of local privi-
leges, the collection of small debts, and the settlement
of petty disputes. It is after the decline had set in that
regular records relating to the Court of Wirral begin to
be available. There are none, however, of the sittings,
or actual proceedings, of the Court for hundreds of years,
and all we can do is to satisfy ourselves of its continued
existence by noting the names and terms of office of those
responsible for its organisation, and by illustrating some
of the duties which fell upon them as holders of such
offices. In dealing with the latter, matters will be referred
to which may seem to have little to do with the Hundred
Court, but it must be remembered that the officers of the
Hundred had not only to attend to the local administration
of justice ; they had also the duty of executing in the
Hundred the royal writs and commissions ; and if an
attempt were made to separate these functions, an incorrect
idea of the position of these officers might be conveyed.
But before commencing upon the regular series
of records beginning half-way through the fourteenth
30 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
century with the accounts of the Sheriffs and the officers
of the Hundred, the main sources of the profits obtained
from a Cheshire Hundred Court and its leet jurisdiction
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries will shortly be
indicated. They would include the fines and amerce-
ments and the fees arising from the civil and minor
criminal cases which came before the monthly Court, and
before the great leet held biennially, and known as the
Sheriff's Turn ; also the fines inflicted for non-attendance
of suitors of the Hundred at the annual View of Frank-
pledge, or for neglect on the part of those liable to serve
as jurors in the monthly Courts. A certain amount of
revenue would also come from the compositions paid for
exemption from attendance or service. In addition to
these, there would be various royal perquisites which, in
the case of Wirral, included such items as reliefs, feudal
fees payable to the Crown on taking up an estate in the
Hundred ; escheats, property the owner of which died
intestate and without an heir, or for other reasons revert-
ing to the Crown ; the right to enforce by fine the assize
of bread, wine, ale, and beer, regulating the quality and
weight of those commodities — after being fined three
times the bakers were liable to the pillory, and the
brewers to the tumbril. A most lucrative source of income
were the " waifs" (vaga) which included the goods and
chattels of felons, fugitives, suicides, and outlaws ; these
were forfeited to the Crown by the consequent attainder of
blood. We find that in Cheshire a proportion of such
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF WIRRAL 31
goods were granted to the Serjeants and bedells of the
peace as a perquisite of office and as a stimulus to activity,
and bore the name of * * pelf " or * ' pilfre." Under this title,
the Serjeants took the felon's best beast of each kind, all
wooden vessels and articles, linen and woollen cloths, a
quarter of his threshed corn, and in some cases his money,
if it did not exceed one hundred shillings. Everything
made or bound with iron seems to have gone, with the
residue of the felon's goods, to the Earl.1
The right of the Serjeants to "pelf" was questioned
(probably in the reign of Edward II.) in the case of the
seizure by the bedells of Richard de Sutton (the Grand
Serjeant of Cheshire) of the goods of one William le
Berch of Hatherton, which had been reduced into the
royal custody by the coroner for the Hundred of Wich
Malbank (Nantwich). One of the bedells was summoned,
and pleaded the custom, but as, in the absence of his
master, he could not prove it, the matter was adjourned
to the next County Court. There is no record of the
decision, but probably it was in the bedell's favour.2
Strictly speaking, the goods of felons committing the
more serious felonies would not come within the purview
of the Hundred Court, as the felons could only be re-
ported and not sentenced there ; but it was the duty of
1 For further details, see the references given in note i, p. 22, ante. As to the
corn, see note I, p. 39, post. "Pelf" is mentioned in the Congleton charter (1272),
Had. MSS. 2074, f. 194 ; Ormerod, iii. 36, and a quotation containing- it is printed
in " Borough Customs" (Selden Soc.), vol. i. p. 65, where it is inaccurately translated
as "pilfered goods."
2 Harl. MSS. 2009, f. 45 (undated).
32 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the bedells to arrest all offenders, whether of high or
low degree of guilt, and the right to their goods became
one of the recognised privileges attached to the Hundred
Court.
Returning after this digression to the perquisites of
the Court, we must mention the estrays, valuable cattle
and horses straying into or found wandering in the
Hundred, without a known owner ; after due proclama-
tion by the bedells in markets and fairs and the ex-
piration of a year and a day without being claimed,
they would be forfeited to the lord of the Hundred.
Further revenue would come from the stallage^ a toll of
a few pence collected from the merchants and hucksters
at the fairs and public markets in the Hundred ; and
from the deodands, the curious forfeiture (only abolished
in 1846), of personal chattels causing accidental death,
such as, for instance, the wheel of a cart which had
passed over a man.1 In addition there would be other
sources of income too numerous to mention, attaching by
custom or prescription in particular Hundreds, but most
of those which occurred in Wirral have been referred to.
From the year 1352 (when the series of Cheshire
Sheriffs' accounts begin), down to the abolition of the
court in 1856, it has been possible to obtain almost a
complete record of the persons who presided either in
1 Emma of Tarvin fell by accident into a vessel full of hot water and died. The
vessel was forfeited to the Grown. Plac. Coronae, 19 Ed. I. The records of Capes-
thorne show that the Davenports, as Serjeants of Macclesfield, claimed the following
deodands : a bell, two gravestones, and part of a cart wheel, all of which had
caused the death of a man. Earwaker's " East Cheshire," ii. 4.
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF WIRRAL 33
person or by deputy over the Hundred Court of Wirral,
and a list of the bedells and farmers of the Hundred,
and of the Sheriffs approvers, will be found in the
Appendix. From 1352 to 1506, the farms (with one
exception) were, however, taken year by year, and it
would be wearisome to refer to them all. A few will
serve as examples, and then it will be sufficient to point
out any interesting or unusual features arising in other
years.
From 1352 to 1372 the revenue of the Hundred and
Hundred Court falls into three divisions, each of which
is separately accounted for by the Sheriff in his annual
accounts. These are: (i) the issues of the bedelry ; (2)
the profits from the felons' goods (vaga] ; and (3) the
perquisites and amercements of the Hundred Court.
(i) The issues of the bedelry. The bedell who took
his office to farm was, we find, entitled to the profits
arising from certain clearly defined sources. In the first
place, he took one-half of the perquisites attached to
the Hundred Court, and also one-half of the fines and
amercements inflicted there. The nature of both of
these has already been indicated,1 Next, he was entitled
to puture, or a reasonable money composition in lieu
thereof, from the tenants of all warlands in the Hundred.
These, too, we have dealt with.2 Thirdly, he took the
fines which freemen holding by charter whose lands
and tenements did not exceed forty shillings in annual
1 Ante, page 30. 2 Ante, page 18.
34 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
value, paid to avoid the obligation which, we have seen,1
they were under to serve the jury summonses throughout
the Hundred. These fines are apparently the same as a
payment mentioned later on in the accounts as " freeman-
silver." Fourthly, a third part of the value of the
" waifs." This seems to have been distinct from "pelf,"
and was probably a third of the value of the goods
actually received by the Crown. Lastly, the bedell was
entitled to a fluctuating perquisite known as " prison
suit " (suete de prisone). This was the name for certain
fees which sheriffs, bailiffs, and gaolers were accustomed
to extort from prisoners and from persons for whose
attachment writs had been issued. The former paid the
money for some relaxation of the rigour of imprisonment
(aise de prisone), and the latter to avoid arrest or the
seizure of their chattels as security for their appearance
before the Court, and to be allowed to find bail.2 Many
of the more serious offences were not bailable in these
days, but persons arrested for misdemeanours, trespasses,
and debt were lawfully entitled to find bail, though not
without paying heavily for the privilege. It was there-
fore to the interest of bailiffs and gaolers to encourage
1 Ante, page 26.
2 The expression, "suete de prisone" probably survived in a corrupted form in
"sweeten and pinch," a cant term used in the seventeenth century by bailiffs to
denote the process of squeezing- money out of their prisoners by holding out hopes
of some indulgence. "A main part of [the bailiffs] office is to swear and bluster at
their trembling prisoner and cry, 'Confound us, why do we wait? let us shop him,'
whilst the other meekly replies, 'Jack, be patient, it is a civil gentleman, and I
know will consider us,' which species of wheedling, in terms of their art, is called
' sweeten and pinch.' " " Four for a Penny " (1678), Harl. Miscell. iv. 147.
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF WIRRAL 35
prosecutions and indictments from which they derived
considerable "prison suit." These extortions were es-
pecially prominent at the date when the Cheshire records
begin, and the statute-book of the fourteenth century is
full of attempts to prohibit them.1 The warden of the
Fleet Prison was particularly notorious in these days
for the way in which he allowed prisoners who paid him
heavy "suit" to go at large, with or without bail, and
to remain out of gaol nights and days without the consent
of the prosecutor, whose efforts to bring the offender
to book were thus nullified. So well known were the
advantages of the Fleet, that debtors cast into other
gaols would confess the debt in order to be removed
to a prison in which they could defy the unfortunate
creditor.2
The exaction of excessive "prison suit" was taken
advantage of in the County Palatine by malicious persons
to harass their enemies. In 1395, we find the burgesses
and commonalty of Flint piteously representing to King
Richard that, owing to the ill-will of the Welsh, they
were daily pursued, to their destruction and impoverish-
ment, with indictments in respect of which they were
forced to pay "prison suit." Their petition prayed for
relief, and that they should be allowed to find bail
according to the law of England. The time for the
total abolition of "prison suit" had not yet come, but
1 See i Ed. III. i. 7; 4 Ed. III. i. 10 ; 25 Ed. III. i. 6 ; 2 Hen. IV. c. 23. The
writer knows of no account of " prison suit " in any other work.
2 i Ric. II. c. 12.
36 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the men of Flint obtained exemption for five years and
an order to the Chamberlain of Chester that they should
be allowed bail on production of satisfactory sureties.1
Fifty years later, payments for "prison suit" or for
ease or favour of any kind were nominally abolished,
and a scale of fees (which included a paltry fourpence,
(equal to 55.) to the bailiff making an arrest or attach-
ment, and a similar sum for a bail bond) was fixed.2
The warden of the Fleet was, however, exempted, and
doubtless the extortions went on much the same else-
where. We shall see later that the efforts of sheriffs
and bailiffs to keep up their fees ultimately (in 1461)
killed the goose from which they had received so many
golden eggs, and deprived them for ever of the right
of dealing with indicted persons.3
In the case of the Hundreds of Cheshire, the "prison
suit " taken by the lessees seems to have been a payment
(apparently reckoned from the date when the Sheriff's
writ of attachment was received) exacted from persons
indicted for misdemeanours for allowing them to remain
at large and their property unattached until the next
sitting of the County Court.4
The remainder of the revenue of the Hundred Court
came from : (2) The profits from the "waifs." A portion
of these were included in the farms of the bedelry, but
unless the bedell chose to farm the whole of the "waifs,"
i C. R. R. 68, m. 5, d. 2 23 Hen. VI. c. 9. 3 Post, page 61.
4 See App. II. No. i. The passage is obscure.
THE REVENUE AND FARMS OF WIRRAL 37
the balance was collected on behalf of the Crown. And
(3) The perquisites and amercements of the Hundred.
Here again the half not taken by the farmer was
separately accounted for. We shall find, however, that
in almost every case a bedell who took his office to
farm leased the right to all of these three classes of
profits, though separate farms of each were in fact taken
until 1372, when a lump sum was fixed to cover the farm
of the whole Hundred.
The first year for which the Sheriffs accounts exist
is 1352, when the rent of the bedelry of Wirral was
^"7, i6s. 8d., whilst the amount paid for the "waifs" and
the balance of the perquisites and amercements was
133. 4d. respectively, a total of ^"9, 35. 4d. per annum.1
After the rent of the bedelry had been raised for three years
from 1355 to £iQj 135. 4d. (the other items remaining the
same 2), a period of six years occurs during which no farmer
came forward, and the actual revenue, which fluctuated
from £$ odd to nearly ^20, was collected by the approvers
on behalf of the Earl.3 One of these officers, Henry Coly,
apparently guessed the moment to step in, and from 1364
to 1374 he farms the Hundred nearly every year. At first
he paid £8 for the bedelry, los. for the "waifs," and 505.
(a considerable increase over 135. 4d.) for the perquisites
and fines — a total rent of £11. In 1370, he had the fore-
sight to decline a farm, and prudently, inasmuch as the
whole revenue of the Hundred for that year was only
1 M. A. 784, 2. App. II. No. i. 2 M. A. 784, 6, 7, 8. 8 M. A. 785-6.
38 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
;£io, iSs.1 A miserable 35. was all the " waifs" pro-
duced, " prison suit" nothing at all, while we may guess
that 335. for the two classes of fines was an unusually
small return. A reduced rent of ^7, los. was consequently
all that could be obtained the next year for the farm.2
In 1372, perhaps to make it more attractive, several
apparently new perquisites were thrown in, and obtained a
rental of £10 for an inclusive farm of the Hundred. The
new items were the serjeanty of the peace, carrying with it
"pelf," as well no doubt as other customary fees due to
the head of the bedells, stallage, and the other half of the
perquisites and amercements not hitherto included in the
bedelry.3 From 1372 onwards the issues of the Hundred
are all covered by one farm. After remaining for 10 years
at .£10, the rent drops a few shillings between 1383 and
1390, but is resumed at £10 again, and so on to 1399,
when it falls to ^8, or ^"8, IDS., until the year 1406.* For
the next eighteen years to 1423 ^8, 135. 4d. is paid, and
constitutes the high water mark for the fifteenth century,
while from 1424 to 1445, ^7, or ^"8, is the usual figure.5
The change that then occurs will be referred to later on.
1 M. A. 787, 2. • M. A. 787, 4. 3 M. A. 787, 5 (4).
* M. A. 787-792. 8 M. A. 792-796.
CHAPTER V
THE LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL AND
THEIR DUTIES, 1352-1402.
Henry de Chorleton— Robert de Pulle— Henry Coly— David de Stanay— Special
Commissions of the Peace — William del Broom — Lease to Henry le Bruynand
Richard de Prestlond, 1391 — Estrays— De Waley's Lease— Outlawry — The
Irish rebellion — Massy of Puddington — Relief of sufferers at Radcote Bridge
— Conservators of the Peace — Palatine privileges abused — Forestalling in
Wirral — Hue and cry.
THERE are many interesting names at this period amongst
the list of officers of Wirral set out in the Appendix, but
this is not the place for tracing their family histories, and
a few only will be from time to time referred to by name
to illustrate the history of the Hundred Court. A name
which appears in 1352 and in several subsequent years is
that of Henry de Chorleton. He was no doubt a Wirral
man, and, besides acting as bedell or approver, he was
one of the official vendors of the goods of felons, for which
he was paid an annual salary of jC^.1 Robert de Pulle, a
bedell for three years (1355-58) was a member of the Poole
family of Wirral, and father of Sir John de Pulle, some-
time governor of Carnarvon Castle. The long farm of
1 C. R. R. 30 &3i Ed. III. m. i. This record also contains the statement that the
Serjeants were not to seize more than a quarter of the corn of felons forfeited to the
Earl.
39
40 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Henry Coly has already been referred to. He was one of
a family, resident at Thingwall in Wirral, the members of
which took prominent part in all local events at this and
later periods. The bedell of 1381-83 was David de Stanay.
He was as usual also bailiff of the Hundred, and in 1384
we find him acknowledging, as "late" bailiff, at the Ex-
chequer of Chester, a debt of ^22, 95. to King Richard II.
Five others, viz. Robert de Bebynton, Edmund de Cog-
hull, Richard Waleys, William del Broom, and Thomas
Denys joined in the recognisance l to secure the debt.
There is nothing to show what the debt was for, but
doubtless it was for arrears of some kind of revenue or
subsidy unaccounted for to the Sheriff. From the amount
of the debt, and the fact that he is referred to as bailiff
and not as bedell, it probably did not represent rent in
arrear. De Stanay was no doubt a member of the family
of that name resident at Stoke in Wirral.2
The system of presentment to the Hundred Court of
breaches of the peace was not always effective in keeping
order, and frequent special commissions had to be issued.
Thus in 1386 Vivian Foxwist and John de Tyldesleigh
were empowered3 to arrest all malefactors and disturbers
of the peace in the Hundred of Wyrehale, the King
having heard of great terror caused by bands of armed
men there. From its position on the borders of Wales,
1 C. R. R. 56, m. i (2).
2 He occurs in several recognisances, temp, Ric. II. and Hen. IV., relating to the
farm of Stoke Church.
8 C. R. R. 9 & 10 Ric. II. m. 2 (8).
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 41
Wirral was constantly subject to invasion by the turbulent
Welsh and was seldom in a quiet state. A few years
later, in 1392, special commissioners for the Hundred,
in the persons of Sir John Massy of Puddington and
William de Hooton, were appointed to arrest all dis-
turbers of the peace, great complaints having reached
the King of their evil doings.1
We find the bedells and bailiffs of 1387 mentioned in
a list2 of moneys received by Roger de Brescy, one of the
clerks of the Exchequer of Chester, on account of King
Richard II. Among the items received in November
from the Sheriff of Chester, in respect of the issues of the
county, appears a sum of 6s. 8d. paid on account of
Nicholas de Tyttelegh, by the bailiffs of the Hundred of
Wirehall. Further down the roll, and apparently for
December of the same year, 8s. appears from Richard de
Prestlond, "one of the bailiffs," and the same amount in
January 1388 from Henry le Bruyn and Richard de Prest-
lond, the two bailiffs of the Hundred of Wyrehall. These
payments were probably instalments of revenue paid in
advance by the bailiffs. In March 1388 the Sheriff
accounts for ,£3, 6s. 8d. through the hands of William de
Stanley, "in onere " of the bailiffs of the Hundred.
On August 2, 1391, a recognisance 3 was entered into
by Margaret, wife of William del Broom, "late bailiff of
the Hundred of Wirehale" (and bedell in 1387-90), Henry
1 C. R. R. 15 & 16 Ric. II. m. 8, d. 7. * M. A. 773 (3).
3 C. R. R. 63, m. 6, 5.
42 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Coly, Robert Baumvill, John del Broom, and Roger del
Broom, acknowledging a debt to the King of ^3, i6s. 6d.,
arrears owing by the bailiff for the previous year, and in
exoneration of the Sheriff of Chester, Sir John de Mascy,
who would otherwise have been responsible. The debt
was payable in two instalments of 265. 8d. and one of
235. 2d.
So far we have obtained our information as to the
terms upon which the officers of the Hundred held their
position from the Sheriff's accounts, but a little more
light is thrown by an entry on the Cheshire Rolls in 1391,
which constitutes the earliest enrolment we have of a lease
of the Hundred of Wirral, though doubtless all the annual
farms were similarly taken. We know from the Sheriff's
accounts that Henry le Bruyn of Moreton in Wirral and
Richard de Prestlond farmed the Hundred for several
years between 1386 and 1396, and it is their lease of 1391
which for some reason was enrolled. l That the rent was
;£io, and that sureties had to be found, is all we get
from this record, and it is fortunate that we are able
to supplement it by the information contained in the
Sheriff's accounts. We shall find that only occasionally
are the leases enrolled, although they are generally taken
year by year. It is difficult to say why certain leases
should be selected for enrolment and not all.
In 1395 le Bruyn and de Prestlond seem to have fallen
into arrear with their rent, as in November 1396 they
1 C. R. R. 64, m. 2, d. 9. App. II. No. 2.
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 43
jointly and severally acknowledge1 a debt to the King's
exchequer of ^20, probably two years' rent. In the
next year (1397) a new bedell was appointed, Thomas
de Waley taking a formal lease,2 before the Chamberlain
and the Sheriff, of the bedelry for one year from Michael-
mas, at the same rent of £10 as his immediate pre-
decessors. The late bailiffs and bedells were still in
trouble over the revenue of the Hundred, as in May 1397
we find William de Stanley, senior, taking on his shoulders
a debt of us. owing to the King, in exoneration of le
Bruyn and de Prestlond.3 The object of this recognisance
was to secure the value of some goods of one Simon del
Twys who had been convicted of felony. He thus became
an outlaw, and in ancient times would have had "caput
lupinum " — that is, he might have been knocked on the
head like a wolf, by any one that should meet him, " be-
cause having renounced all laws he was to be dealt with
as in a state of nature, when every one that should find
him might slay him." In consequence of this outlawry
Twys' goods had been forfeited to the King, and appa-
rently the bailiffs had sold them to de Stanley without
accounting for the proceeds. A few days later the same
bailiffs acknowledged 4 the large debt of ,£64, 8s. 4^d. in
respect of their term of office during the Shrievalty of
Robert le Grosvenor, who had been Sheriff in 1394 and
1 C. R. R. 69, m. ii, d. 5. 2 C. R. R. 70, m. 4, d. 8. 3 C. R. R. 70, m. 5, d. 9.
1 C. R. R. 70, m. 8 (2). The year before the bailiff of the Hundred of Nantwich was
similarly bound in £68, ^s. o^d (C. R. R. 18 & 19 Ric. II. m. 7, d. (3) ) and the bailiff
of Northwich in £22, 93. g^d. (C. R. R. 18 & 19 Ric. II. m. 7, d. (4) ).
44 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
on other occasions. The money was payable on a fixed
date, but the recognisance was to be void if de Prestlond
then came himself and paid £$ on account, and reasonable
payments were made from time to time at the Sheriff's
return, or rent-day, till the whole debt was wiped out and
the liability of the Sheriff at an end. The amount of the
debt represented an extremely large sum in those days,
upwards of £600 of our money, and it is hard to say how
the bailiffs came to owe it. It had certainly nothing to do
with the farm of the Hundred, and probably was arrears of
a subsidy.
The jurisdiction of the officers of the Hundred over
the perquisites of the Crown is illustrated by a recognis-
ance1 in 1394, whereby John de Molynton became surety
for whatever should be adjudged to the King on account
of the capture, by the bailiffs of the Hundred of Wirral,
of some "estrays," the property of John de Waley and
William Maykin. These were probably cattle found
wandering and impounded until the true owners proved
their title and paid a fee to have them returned. We
have seen that if they were not claimed after due pro-
clamation and the expiration of a year and a day they
would be forfeited to the Crown.
The condition of Ireland, at this time in a state of
rebellion, was causing much anxiety to the King. Quanti-
ties of troops were being despatched to subdue the in-
surrection, and sailors were being whipped up in the
1 C. R. R. 67, m. 2, d. (8).
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 45
western ports of England to man the ships sailing for
Ireland. Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the King's
cousin, was in command of the expedition, and the ports
of Chester and Liverpool were full of ships awaiting their
crews. In July 1397 the bailiffs of the Hundred of Wirral
were directed l by letters under the great seal to arrest
all sailors in their bailiwick, and convey them to the ships
which had been collected at Chester and Liverpool for
the conveyance of Mortimer's men, horses, and armour.
The impressed mariners were to be paid reasonable
wages, and any one resisting was to be imprisoned in
Chester Castle. Earlier in the year Sir John Massey
of Puddington, with his son Hamo and others, had been
commanded2 to seize all ships of 10 tons burthen and
upwards which they could find between Holyhead and
Furness, and to bring them with crews to the ports
of Chester and Conway for the passage to Ireland of
Mortimer's retinue. By the terms of the letters patent
the special commissioners were empowered to enter into
"the liberties" of the county, places where otherwise
they would not be able to go to execute the royal writs.
One of the bedells of Wirral for 1398, namely Robert
Baumvill, and several subsequent ones, are named among
a body of twenty commissioners3 who were entrusted in
1 C. R. R. 70, m. 6, 5. 2 C. R. R. 70, m. 6, 4.
8 C. R. R. 22 & 23 Ric. II. m. 6 (5). The commissioners were : Sir John de
Pulle, Wm. de Stanley, Thos. del Hog-h, John de Lytherland, John de Warewyk,
Wm. de Tranemoele, Gilbert Glegg, John de Bebynton, Wm. de Meoles, David de
Staney, Wm. de Wilbram, John Coly, Thos. del Lee, Roger Trull, Robert Hopkynsone,
Richd. le Smyth, Robt. Baumvill, Robt. le Clerc, John de Holden and Wm. Turfmos.
46 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
that year with the distribution in the Hundred of Wirral
of a sum of ^411, i6s. 8d., part of a sum of 4000 marks1
sent by King Richard II. out of his treasury at West-
minster for the relief of those of the people of Cheshire
who suffered in the King's service at " Redcote brugge "
(Radcot Bridge, near Bampton in Oxfordshire). There,
in 1388, 5000 of the Cheshire men, under the leadership
of Sir Thomas Molyneux, constable of Chester Castle,
had been severely defeated by the Duke of Gloucester,
the King's uncle, the Earl of Derby, and others, whilst
conducting the Duke of Ireland to the King. Sir Thomas
Molyneux was killed by Sir Thomas Mortimer, and many
of the Cheshire men were slain.2 The distribution of this
large sum was attended by considerable formality. The
Treasurer of England and the King's Sergeant-at-arms
attended in Chester, and formally, before the Chamberlain,
the Mayor, and the Sheriffs of the city, delivered 3000
marks, part of the grant, 1.0 the Sheriff of the county,
who in his turn deposited it, pending distribution, with
the Abbot and Convent of Chester for safe custody.3
The balance of 1000 was delivered to the Sheriff, pre-
1 The 4000 marks (£2666, 133. 4d.) were apportioned among the Hundreds as
follows: Eddisbury, £356, 153. 4fd. ; Macclesfield, £709, 53. i^d. ; Nantwich, £183, 8s.
xofd. ; Northwich, £218, 43. 7fd. ; Broxton, £220, 23. gjd. ; Bucklow, £556, igs. lod. ;
Wirral, £41 1, 163. 8d. (leaving £10 unaccounted for). Dr. Morris, in "Chester in the
Plantagenet and Tudor Reigns," erroneously states 3000 marks were distributed, and
apparently thinks the people of the " City " of Chester received them. Mr. Lumby, in
his paper on "Chester and Liverpool in the Patent Rolls" (Hist. Soc. of L. & C.
vol. xix.-xx. N.S.), gives the amount as 3000 marks "gold." Both the writers over-
look a further 1000 marks mentioned lower down the same membrane of the roll.
* Playfair, " Baronet," vol. vi. ; Camden Britt. p. 285, edn. 1590.
• C. R. R. 20 & 21 Ric. II. m. 7, d. (7) & (8) & (9).
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 47
sumably for immediate distribution, together with a bag
containing rolls, petitions, and memoranda for the guid-
ance of those who should distribute the money. The
people of the county did not benefit very much by this
royal gift, as a few years later the sum of 3000 marks
was levied upon them to pay for a general pardon to all
who took part in the insurrection of Henry Percy.1
In 1399 the disturbed state of Cheshire, consequent
upon the conflict between Richard II. and Henry of
Lancaster, and the risings in Wales, made it necessary
for Conservators of the Peace to be appointed for all
the Hundreds.2 These Conservators were the prede-
cessors of Justices of the Peace, and to their appoint-
ment may partially be ascribed, as already explained,
the decline in the jurisdiction of the Hundred Courts.
The appointment of these Conservators was made, not by
the King or by the people, but by the Prince of Wales, to
whom the County Palatine had been granted a few years
before by Richard II. when he created it a principality.3
It is worth noting in passing that the fact that writs
and process issued outside the County Palatine could not
be executed in Cheshire owing to the palatine privileges,
was found about this date to be productive of abuses.
1 1403. C. R. R. 4 & 5 Hen. IV. m. 3 (i) (2) (3) (4) (5). C. P. R. 5 Hen. IV. m. 6.
1406. C. R. R. 6 & 7 Hen. IV. m. 4 (i)-(7).
2 C. R. R. i & 2 Hen. IV. m. 3, d (i). Those appointed for Wirral were : Sir
John de Pulle, Wm. de Stanley, Hamo Mascy, John de Whitmore, Wm. de Tranmoll,
Jas. de Pulle, John Litherland, John del Meoles, Thos. de Bolde, John de Tildesley,
Vivian de Foxwist and Gilbert Glegg1.
3 21 Ric. II. c. 9.
4 8 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
"Grievous clamour and complaint " arose that residents in
Cheshire committed felonies and trespasses in the neigh-
bouring counties and, by escaping back into their county,
evaded punishment. Accordingly, at the commencement
of the reign of Henry IV., the palatine privileges were so
far relaxed that in such cases process of outlawry was
allowed to issue in the county where the offence was com-
mitted, and then was certified to the officials of Chester by
whom the offender and his chattels were to be seized.
After enjoyment of the latter by the King for the usual
year and a day, they were to be forfeited as escheats to
the " Prince of Chester."1
The "good men and true" of the Hundred jury
were specially called together in 1402 in pursuance of
letters patent 2 issued by the Prince of Wales. An ordin-
ance relating to cattle (probably designed to secure a
supply of meat for the King's army in North Wales) had
been broken by Henry le Bruyn of Moreton (a former
bedell), John de Dokynton, John Hog, Roger del Broom,
and others, who had driven some beasts out of Wales into
the Hundred in contravention of the ordinance. A jury of
the Hundred Court was summoned to ascertain on oath the
number and nature of the cattle ; Sir John Mascy of Pud-
dington, with Hamo de Mascy and Richard de Moston,
were commissioned to seize them, and to arrest the offenders
and bring them up to Chester Castle for judgment.
1 i Hen. IV. c. 18. Reeve's "History of England," 1787, iii. 241.
2 C. R. R. 2 & 3 Hen. IV. m. n (u).
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 49
In those days it was an offence to corner, or attempt to
control, the markets for merchandise, corn, and grain, and
persons were presentable in the Hundred Courts for "fore-
stalling," as it was called. Other offences of the same
kind were, " regrating," or buying corn in a market and
selling it again in or near the same place at enhanced
prices, and "ingrossing, " buying up large quantities of
grain with intention of holding for later sale at a profit.
There does not seem anything very criminal in these days
about such operations, but owing to the scarcity and high
price of corn, it was considered desirable to prevent them,
and to restrict the export of grain. The jurisdiction of
the Hundred Court over these offences, however, did not
prove effective in Wirral, and in the year 1401 we find Sir
John de Pulle, William de Stanley, junior, and John de
Lytherland, appointed commissioners by Henry Prince of
Wales to inquire into the conduct of the ingrossers and
regrators in the Hundred, who bought up and hoarded
grain for sale in foreign parts to the injury of the poor
of the Hundred. The commissioners were ordered to
cause all the hoarded grain to be brought into the nearest
market and sold at a reasonable price, and to prevent
any exportation out of the Hundred.1
Although we do not hear about it, the Hundred Court
of Wirral must frequently have had to deal with offenders
against the statutes of Hue and Cry, in which the original
1 C. R. R. 2 & 3 Hen. IV. m, 3, d. (8). Many subsequent commissions of the same
kind occur.
50 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
system under which the inhabitants of a Hundred were
collectively responsible one for another survived. Under
these provisions, originating in the time of the Edwards,1
the Hundred where a robbery took place was liable, in
default of the capture of the robber, to compensate the
person robbed, and also to pay for damage caused by
rioters. A false alarm or any slackness in rendering assist-
ance in the Hue and Cry was punishable in the Court.
During the sixteenth century, it was found that those who
were robbed, having an easy remedy against the Hundred,
lost the incentive to pursue the robber, and that he fre-
quently escaped because the neighbouring Hundreds (which
were not responsible), became slack in their Hue and Cry.
It became necessary to bind over every person robbed to
prosecute, and to stimulate the energy of the neighbouring
Hundreds by making them liable to pay half the damages
in default of the arrest of the offender.2 In later times
the Hundred had to be protected against false claims by
stringent provisions as to notice and advertisement, and a
standing reward of ^10 for the apprehension of robbers
was instituted.3 That bogus claims against the Hundreds
for heavy sums were made, is apparent by the fact that a
law was passed to provide that no one could recover
more than ^200 from a Hundred unless he had a com-
panion with him at the time of the robbery to attest to
the truth of his story.4 The puritans turned this liability
* 13 Ed. I. st. 2, c. i and 2', 28 Ed. III. c. u. 2 27 Eliz. c. 13.
» 8 Geo. II. c. 16. 4 22 Geo. II. c. 24.
LESSEES OF THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL 51
of the Hundred to their own account when they denied to
persons travelling on Sundays any remedy against the
Hundred for a robbery committed on that day, unless
it occurred on the way to or from church.1
Early in last century the Hundreds were freed from
liability in respect of robberies, but their responsibility for
damage by rioters continued in a modified form until the
year 1886, when the police rate was saddled with the
payment of compensation.
1 29 Car. II. c. 7.
CHAPTER VI
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509
Owen Glendower — Lease to de Saynesbury and de Brumburgh, 1403 — Henry
Coly — False rumours in Wirral — Various bedells — No revenue in 1411 —
Justices itinerant for Wirral, 1429 — Sir Thomas Stanley's lease, 1445 — Abuse
of the Sheriff's Turn — Gleggs of Gayton — Effects of civil wars — Resumption
of leases, 1475 — Reduction of rent — Robert Trafford's lease, 1507 — Ithell and
Bebynton's lease, 1509.
THE revolt of Owen Glendower was naturally a most dis-
turbing" influence throughout Cheshire, and for some years
the men of the county were constantly engaged in repel-
ling the invasions of the Welsh. The records are full of
writs commanding every one holding possessions on the
marches to hasten home and make defence. Among the
duties thrown upon the officers of the Hundreds on the
marches was that of preventing the Welsh getting supplies.
In June of 1403 the Prince of Wales ordered the bailiffs
of the Hundred of Wirral to prohibit the sale of grain or
provisions by the men of Wirral to Welshmen of the county
of Flint or other parts of Wales. The reason for this was
that the Prince had heard that many men of the Hundred
were in the habit of furnishing the men of Flint and of
the townships of Denbigh, Denfrencluyt (Dyffryn-clwyd),
Hawarden, and Hopedale with supplies, and they in their
52
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 53
turn sold them to the Welsh rebels.1 Commissioners were
also appointed to seize all the grain, &c., in the Hundred
which had been sold to the Welsh, who, the Prince had
heard, entered the Hundred by night and day by certain
fords ''ultra aquam de Dee" and carried thence a great
quantity of grain for the support of the rebels, contrary
to proclamation.2
In the autumn of 1403, it again became necessary, in
view of the near approach of Owen Glendower, who was
reported in the marches of the county, to appoint special
conservators and guardians for the Hundred of Wirral.
The names of John de Pulle, William de Stanley, John
Lytherland, and John de Meoles appear in the writ. They
were instructed to appoint watches, and to make hedges,
ditches, and other impediments on the sea coast of Flint
to repel the invaders.3 Another step taken was to appoint
Hamo de Mascy of Puddington and others as keepers of
the passes between the city of Chester and " Hazelwall "
to prevent traffic with the rebels.4
The enrolment of the bedelry leases was, as we know,
very spasmodic, but we find the one for 1403 to John de
Saynesbury and Hugh de Brumburgh upon the rolls. This,
it is recited, they took in their own names, and were entitled
to "all issues and profits of the office." 5 The lease, as we
know, was for one year and the rent was now ^8, payable
1 C. R. R. 3 & 4 Hen. IV. m. 10 (7). 2 C. R. R. 3 & 4 Hen. IV. m. 8, d. (8).
3 C. R. R. 3 & 4 Hen. IV. m. 10, d. (6).
4 C. R. R. 4 & 5 Hen. IV. m. 7, d. (8) and (9). B C. R. R. 76, m. 13 (11).
54 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
to the Earl of Chester. The lessees appear at the time
to have been in arrears with their accounts as bailiffs to
the Sheriff, and shortly after taking the lease they had
to obtain two sureties in the persons of Henry Coly and
Gilbert Glegg to guarantee that they met their liabilities
in respect of their previous term of office, so as to exoner-
ate the late Sheriff, Henry de Ravenscroft.1 Henry Coly
himself was joint bedell with Thomas Coly in 1405,
and doubtless also bailiff, as in 1406 we find the latter
joined with Thomas de Waley, John de Whitemore, and
Richard Coley in a recognisance 2 to Henry Prince of
Wales and Earl of Chester for ^"9, 195. 3d. arrears of
Henry Coly when he was bailiff.
So far as we can gather, the bedells never had much
difficulty in paying their rents, but from the constant re-
cognisances entered into by the bailiffs, it would seem that
they found great difficulty in collecting that part of the
revenue for which they were responsible, and no doubt
the disturbed and deteriorating state of this part of the
county had much to do with their troubles.
The two bedells for 1403, Thomas de Maynwaryng
and Roger Trull, were appointed commissioners to collect
a subsidy in Wirral in that year, but doubtless this was
in consequence of their being also bailiffs of the Hundred.3
Early in 1404, a jury of the Hundred was ordered to be
impanelled for an unusual object. False rumours (probably
1 C. R. R. 77, m. i (10). * C. R. R. 78, m. 6, d. (i).
3 C. R. R. 3 & 4 Hen. IV. m. 7 (4).
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 55
relating to the Welsh rebellion) were being spread about
in Cheshire, and malicious letters circulated by mes-
sengers and runners, which the Earl of Chester con-
sidered constituted a national danger and caused great
disquiet in the county. He therefore issued a commission l
to each Hundred to inquire into the matter. The com-
missioners for Wirral were Sir John de Pulle, Sir William
de Stanley, Hamo de Mascy, Vivian Foxwist, James de
Pull, and John de Meoles. The bailiffs of the Hundred
were ordered to impanel before them the jury of the
Hundred, by whose oath the disseminators of false news
were to be discovered and then arrested. It would be
interesting to know whether they were punished under the
law of Edward I., which prescribed imprisonment until the
first author of the false rumour was brought into Court,
a punishment which might sometimes, one would think,
involve perpetual incarceration. A report under seal upon
the matter was to be made to the King and council, and
all officers of the county were enjoined to assist in the
inquiry. The same writ ordered the commissioners to
array the fencible men of the Hundred, and to attend
before the Sheriff at "Topplegh" to hear what should
then be expounded to them. We are left in ignorance
of the nature of the exposition.
One of the bedells for 1406 bears a well-known name.
John Rathbone doubtless came from Tushingham in
the neighbouring Hundred of Broxton. His companion,
1 C. R. R. 77, m. 4, d. (2).
56 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
John Goodfellow, had served the King in Ireland and
elsewhere with distinction, and as a reward obtained a
grant for life of a place in Wirral called " Rideresplace,"
together with the custody of Salghale wood.1 John le
Barker of Wallasey, bedell in 1408, was perhaps origi-
nally a Wrexham man. We find him coming in from
thence to Chester in 1404, with one Matthew le Cornifer,
because they were unwilling to join the rebels. Their
loyalty was cruelly doubted, and both had formally to
do fealty to the Earl and find a surety.2
The regularity in the payment of the rent for the
Hundred was broken, for some unknown reason, in 1411,
and the Sheriffs accounts show that from March of that
year to January 14, 1412, there were no receipts, so
far as he was concerned, from any of the farms of the
Cheshire Hundreds, and the profits from felon's goods
and prison suit are entered as nil.3 But the diversion
of the revenue was only temporary, and the farms were
resumed next year. One of the bedells of Wirral for
1412 was William Hare. This was possibly the King-
sley man who, a few years before, had been granted
for life the office of vendor of the bark and timber
blown down in the forest of Mara, with one penny a
day as wages.4
Thomas Broune, who shared the farm of Wirral in
1 C. R. R. i & 2 Hen. IV. m. i, d. 8. 2 C. R. R. 4 & 5 Hen. IV. m. 6, d. (10).
3 M. A. 792, 9, and 793. In 1413 £175, 135. 7jd. was derived from fines and
ransoms arising out of pleas in the County Court.
4 C. R. R. 4 & 5 Hen. IV. m. 5 (5) (6).
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 57
1415, seems to have been a Wallasey yeoman who
subsequently went to serve King Henry V. in France,
for which he was granted protection,1 whilst Thomas
Holden, bedell in 1417 with Henry Waley, held the
royal office of Master Mason in Cheshire and Flint,
during the King's pleasure.2
One of the bedells for 1424-26, John Jevansone, is
mentioned, in his capacity of a bailiff for Wirral, in a
commission to the Sheriff, the under Sheriff, the escheator,
Roger Holes, the coroner for Wirral, and the other bailiffs
and coroners of the Hundreds, to arrest a band of dis-
turbers of the peace headed by some of the Venables and
Cholmondeley families.3
So far, although no doubt the justices itinerant, upon
whom devolved so much of the ancient jurisdiction of
the Hundred Court, had perambulated Wirral, we have
only general mention of their appointment for the County.
In September 1429, however, it is recorded4 that William
Chauntrell and Richard Bolde were commissioned as
justices (hac vice] for the Eyre to be held in the
Hundreds of Wirral and Broxton. The Court for the
former was often held at Eastham or Backford. The
officers of the Hundred were bound to attend the Eyre,
and originally had the duty of choosing four prominent
knights of the Hundred, who in their turn selected
twelve other knights or freemen to act as jurors of the
i C. R. R. 5 & 6 Hen. V. m. 2, d. (6). 2 C. R. R. 2 & 3 Hen. V. m. 2 (2).
3 C. R. R. 97, m. 2 (10). « C. R. R. 7 & 8 Hen. VI. m. 3 (3).
58 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Eyre and present offences to the Justices of Assize.
Later on, the duty of presenting indictments devolved
on the Grand Inquest or jury of the county, and the
men of the Hundred were only summoned to the Eyre
to act as common jurors in the decision of cases. The
lessees and bailiffs of the Hundreds were also bound
to attend the sittings of quarter sessions and of the
Sheriffs County Court, and there are many instances
of their being summoned to the latter with the other
officers of the county.
Although it is not quite clear whether its application
was confined to Cheshire, the following article to which
the Chamberlain and Vice-Chamberlain of Chester had
to swear the men of the county (probably at the Hundred
Court) in 1434, gives an indication of the disturbed and
lawless condition of the county in these times : —
" Yat no lorde nor none other p'sone, of what
astate, degree, or condic'on yat he shall be, wetyngly
resceyve, cherissh, holde in housald, ne mayntene, pilours,
robburs, opp'ssours of people, mansleers, felouns, out-
lawes, ravyssheres of women ayenst ye lawe, unlawefull
hunters of forestes, parkes, or warennes, or any other
opyn misdoers, or any openly named or famed for such,
till his innocence be declared. And yat neether be
colour or occasion of feffement or of yeft of goode
moeble passed be dede noe oder wyse any of the said
lordes ne non other shall take any other mennes cause
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 59
or quarell, in favour, supportacion, or mayntenaunce as
be worde, be wryting, nor be message to officer, jugge,
jurre, or to partie or be yeft of his clothyng, or livere,
or takyng in to his s'vice the partie, nor conceyve
agayne any jugge or officer indignacion or displeceaunce
for doing of his office in fourme of lawe. And yat ye
shall kape yis not all only in her awein p'sones, but
yat ye see yat all oder in her counttrees as mich as in
hem is, and thair s'vants, and all other such as be
under hem of lesse estate do the same. And yf thai
do the conntarie make hem withouten delay leve hit or
elles put hem a way fro hem."1
Thus it is not surprising to find that John de Saynes-
bury and William Fairrie, the bedells and bailiffs of
Wirral on several occasions between 1427 and 1437,
were unable to collect the revenue of the Hundred.
Immense sums of money were in arrear, and to enable
it to be collected a special commission 2 was issued
in 1437 under which they, and the then bailiffs of the
Hundred, were empowered to get in the arrears with
despatch from all debtors who were unable to produce
receipts or tallies, or by some other means to prove
that they had discharged their debts. Numerous other
instances of the duties and responsibilities of the officers
of Wirral are to be found on the rolls, but probably
they have been sufficiently indicated for this period.
1 C. R. R. 12 & 13 Hen. VI. in. 9, d. (2). a C. R. R. 109, m. 3 (16).
60 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
In October 1445 a lease1 of the combined office of
bailiff and bedell of the Hundred of Wirral, with all
issues and profits of the Sheriff's "Tourn," and other
perquisites (not mentioned in detail) was granted to Sir
Thomas Stanley, knight, Geoffrey Starkey of North-
wich and Robert More. The lease is noteworthy, inas-
much as it was for twenty years, whereas up to now the
leases had been annual. The rent was reduced to £7
per annum, and never again approached anything like
that amount. The same parties at the same time took
a similar lease2 in respect of the Hundred of Eddisbury,
the rent in this case being ^8.
This Stanley was Sir Thomas Stanley of Liverpool,
who held many important offices during his life. He was
a judge of the Palatine Court, and was subsequently Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland, Comptroller of the Household and
Chamberlain to Henry VI. He was created a K.G. and
Baron Stanley in 1456, and died in 1459. Starkey was a
member of a branch of the important Cheshire family of
that name resident at Northwich, whilst More was one
of the great Liverpool family and had been Mayor of that
town on several occasions.
It will be seen that, in addition to the fees derived
from the ordinary sittings of the Hundred Court, the
lessees took the profits of the Sheriff's Turn, i.e. the fines
and fees of the great Leet held twice a year by the Sheriff,
to whom, as the King's representative, the fees of the day
i C. R. R. 119, m. 6, n. App. II. No. 5. 2 C. R. R. 119, m. 6, 10.
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 61
would in the ordinary way go. Probably, however, these
profits had long formed part of the farm of the Hundred,
although not specifically mentioned. The bedells did not
enjoy them much longer. The increased jurisdiction of
justices of the peace had caused the Turn to be less and
less resorted to ; and, to regain their lost business and fees,
Sheriffs of counties and their underlings, the bailiffs and
bedells, began to present improper and fictitious indict-
ments at the Turn, and to get them affirmed by venal
jurors, "persons of no substance, nor behaviour, nor
dreading God, nor the World's shame." The result was
that many persons were illegally fined and convicted, and
then, by withdrawal or destruction of the indictment, the
right of an appeal was frustrated. This procedure resulted
practically in the destruction of the Turn, as in 1461 an
Act1 was passed which took away the power of hearing
and determining indictments and transferred it to the
justices in quarter sessions. The Turn itself existed in
point of form until the year 1887. 2
About this time the bailiffs came in contact with a
member of a family which has played a large part in the
history of Wirral. The Gleggs of Gayton had sided with
the house of York in the great struggle with Henry VI.,
and in 1460 had seized at Gayton money and jewels
belonging to the King to the value of 20,000 marks.
As they forcibly resisted every attempt to recover the
1 i Ed. IV. c. 2. See also i Ric. III. c. 4.
a Sheriffs' Act, 1887.
62 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
valuables, a commission l to arrest them was issued. It
was directed to the Sheriff, the bailiffs of Wirral, and
to William Stanley, two of the Pooles, Thomas Mascy
of Puddington, and William Whitmore, and enjoined
the seizure and production at Chester Castle of Thomas
and John Glegg, John Brumburgh, and William Knysty,
together with the stolen jewels. Mortimer states2 that
Thomas Glegg was imprisoned until 1469, but appar-
ently he was free in I463,3 although it was not till 1469
that he was pardoned4 by Edward IV. in the usual por-
tentous document, apparently prepared on the principle
of enumerating all possible offences that a human being
could commit and then forgiving any of them the offender
might have committed.
The lease of 1445 seems to have lapsed in 1459.
Perhaps the death of Lord Stanley had something to
do with this. But more probably it was one of the
effects of the disastrous battle of Bloreheath, when the
men of Cheshire were divided against themselves. It is
commonly stated that the Wars of the Roses had little
or no effect upon the judicial organisation and com-
mercial progress of the country. This was certainly not
the case in Cheshire, where for the first fifteen years of
the war the judicial system of the county seems to have
been nearly at a standstill. Practically no revenue was
1 C. R. R. 133, m. 6, 3. » " History of Wirral," p. 236.
• C. R. R. 2 & 3 Ed. IV. m. 2, d. (12) ; 4 & 5 Ed. IV. m. 9 (4) ; 5 & 6 Ed. IV.
m. 3 (5).
* C. R. R. 141, m. 9 (2).
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 63
collected from the Hundreds1 and as regards Wirral, what
revenue could be got in was returned by "approvers," as
no one would come forward to take a farm. For the two
years 1460-2, the issues which had been let to Sir Thomas
Stanley and others for £j only returned an aggregate
of 305. Indeed, a pound or two is all that conies in from
Wirral for the next ten years or so. In 1467, the Sheriff
returns no revenue, because he states that Edmund Lither-
land, the bailiff of Wirral, took it himself. Litherland
does not appear to have accounted for these items, as
in the following year the Sheriff is charged with 305. in
respect of the two years' income, and again in 1469 with
2os. 8d. This Litherland was, it may be mentioned, a
difficult person to deal with, and appears annually on the
Recognisance Rolls from 1463 to 1476 as being bound
over, under the suretyship of other Wirral men, to keep
the peace towards Richard, Abbot of St. Werburgh,
another firebrand who had suffered imprisonment in
Chester Castle for altering the city boundaries, and took
an active local part in the civil war.
The re-establishment of law and order in Cheshire was
1 The Sheriff's accounts also record that nothing was received in the Hundreds
from the following- items which, in former years, appear to have been regular sources
of income : — The fines of judgers and suitors, the profits of the Tourns, " fines
panellorum," prison suit, sheriff's aid (auxilium -vicecomitis), treasure trove, "securitas
pacis," recognisances, "fines atterminati" (fines for the payment of which time had
been given), wreck, "fines pro denariis levandi," "exitus aut amerciamenta foris-
facta coram Camerariis, et auditoribus Regis Cestrie " and " freeman-silver." A
certain amount of revenue, amounting, however, only to £54, 143. 8d. for the whole
county, was accounted for in respect of the estreats of the justices and included
£7, i8s. 6d. from fines inflicted before the justices in Eyre at Backford and elsewhere.
64 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
gradual, and it was not until 1475 that any one could be
induced again to lease the Hundred. William Knysty
and Roger Hole (both of whom we have met before) then
came forward to do so, but on very different conditions.
The civil war had broken the county ; the silting up of
the Dee had practically driven away the coasting trade
so long enjoyed by the port of Chester, and at Burton,
Denhall, and Neston along the coasts of Wirral ; the con-
sequent loss of trade with Wales and Ireland had caused
the already depleted population to move to other and more
prosperous places, thus reducing the number of people to
do suit and service at the Hundred Court. The profits of
the Sheriffs Turn were practically gone, and there was the
increasing jurisdiction of justices and quarter sessions.
All these facts tended greatly to reduce the profits to be
made by a Crown lessee, and were doubtless some of the
reasons why, from £j in 1459, the rent should drop to
£i9 6s. 8d. in 1475. At this figure there was apparently
a fair margin of profit, as for thirty years there is an un-
interrupted series of annual lessees who offered that
amount to hold the Hundred Court. Nor do the farmers
seem to have had any difficulty in paying their rent, from
which we may infer the Hundred was settling down and
well under the control of the authorities. But the Hundred
was still troubled from time to time with military affairs
which kept the bailiffs busy. In the autumn of 1480, a
commission,1 consisting of William Stanley of Hooton,
1 C. R. R. 20 & 21 Ed. IV. m. i (3).
THE HUNDRED OF WIRRAL, 1403-1509 65
Thomas Poole, senior, Thomas Massy of Puddington, and
Thomas Glegg, was appointed to collect the fighting men
of the Hundred before Christmas, so as to be in readi-
ness to attend the Prince of Wales in warlike array upon
three days' notice. A return was also to be made to
the Chamberlain of Chester from the gentlemen of the
Hundred to determine the number of horsemen with their
accoutrements that could be raised in each household.1
Early in 1481 the bailiffs of Wirral were commanded,
for urgent reasons and under penalty of 100 marks, to
summon these commissioners before the Chamberlain at
the Exchequer of Chester to hear and do the matters
then and there to be expounded to them ; 2 and a little
later another array was ordered of all fencible men
between sixteen and sixty, to depart on an appointed day
with the King " versus partes Scocie."3
There is little of interest in the lessees for this period.
The names of Thomas Whitoff, Roger Oldfield, and
Richard Bebington occur a number of times, whilst Thomas
Gelibrande (1492), though perhaps not a Wirral man, had
married into the family of Parr, owners of the manor of
Backford.4 From 1493 onwards John ap Ithell and James
Bebynton were bedells and bailiffs on many occasions and
to them, with the bailiffs of Broxton and Eddisbury, a
commission6 was addressed in 1496, commanding that,
with the under-Sheriff, Ralph Birkenhead, Thomas Hogh,
1 C. R. R. 20 & 21 Ed. IV. m. i, d. (3). 2 C. R. R. 20 & 21 Ed. IV. m. i, d. (10).
3 C. R. R. 20 & 21 Ed. IV. m. 7 (i). • C. R. R. n & 12 Hen. VII. m. 5 (2).
6 C. R. R. 166, m. 2 (2).
E
66 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the coroner for the Hundred of Wirral, and Thomas
Glegg of Gayton, they should inquire into the accumula-
tion and hoarding" of grain in the Hundred and cause it
to be publicly sold in the markets at a fair price.
In 1507, we find King Henry VII. granting a lease1
to Robert Trafford, by the suretyship of John Trafford,
chaplain, of all issues and pleas of the Hundred of Wirral,
as well as all fines, amercements, forfeitures, and profits
to the said bailiwick pertaining or in any way belonging,
with the use and occupation of the said bailiwick. The
lease was for two years only, and the rent, payable to the
Earls of Chester, was 265. 8d. of " old rent" and 35. 4d.
by way of increase, a total of 305., payable at Easter and
Michaelmas by equal portions. This was the first occasion
on which the rent had been raised since 1475.
Upon the expiration of this lease in 1509, a fresh one2
was taken by John ap Ithell and James Bebynton, who
had held the Hundred some years before. John Glegg of
Gayton was surety. The issues and profits of the office of
bailiff and bedell were granted for a term of fourteen years,
and the rent was again slightly increased, being 305. of
old rent and is. 8d. of new, and at this figure it remained
for more than one hundred and fifty years.
1 C. R. R. 176, m. 9 (2). App. II. No. 6.
2 C. R. R. 179, m. i. App. II. N7o. 7.
CHAPTER VII
FROM HENRY VIII. TO THE END OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Transfer of Cheshire franchises — Augmentation Office — Queen Elizabeth's lease
to Cuthbert Venables — The rights and privileges of a lessee — Lease to William
Trafford — Sir William Massy — Report on the Hundred, 1661 — Lease to John
Carter, 1662 — Transfer of Hundred to Thomas Dod, 1679 — Edward Gleggof
Irby — Lease to his Executor by Queen Anne — John Glegg's marriage — His
two leases — Court Roll, 1744 — Suit and service — Death of John Glegg, 1768,
and leases to his son John — Lieut.-Gen. Birkenhead Glegg — The last lease
runs out, 1816.
UP to the beginning of the sixteenth century the manage-
ment of the Crown franchises in Cheshire seems to have
remained in the hands of the palatine authorities, and
leases and documents relating to them are to be found
entered on the Palatine Rolls, but after the year 1510 no
further leases of any Cheshire Hundreds are to be found
there, though there are a few grants and appointments
of bailiffs for life or during pleasure, but none for the
Hundred of Wirral. The management of the Crown
lands and franchises in Cheshire was at some date in
the reign of Henry VIII., probably before 1545, trans-
ferred to the Exchequer at Westminster. But the system
of enrolling the leases seems to have fallen into abeyance,
and none can be found for a period of nearly ninety-five
67
68 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
years.1 We are therefore thrown back again upon the
Sheriffs accounts, but, although we can gather from these
that the lease of 1509 to Ithell and Bebynton was pro-
bably renewed up to the year 1529, even the Sheriff's
accounts then fail to give us the lessees' names for a
period of sixty-five years. From 1530 to 1595 all we know
is that the Hundred was farmed out at the old rent of
£i, us. 8d. Such insignificant franchises as that of a
Hundred had probably been swamped in the rush of new
Crown property which followed upon the dissolution of
the monasteries and abbeys. A special Court to deal
with the forfeited lands and the suits concerning them
was created under the name of the Augmentation Court.
This Court was dissolved by Queen Mary, but the Aug-
mentation Office remained, and it is there that we find
the next lease of the Hundred of Wirral. In 1596 Queen
Elizabeth granted a twenty-one years' lease2 of "All our
Hundred of Wyrehall " to one Cuthbert Venables whom the
writer has been unable to identify with any of the Cheshire
families of that name.3 The franchise of the Hundred is
referred to as part of the late possessions of the Earls of
Chester, and was granted by Queen Elizabeth in as full
and ample a manner as any of the Earls could have done.
A fine was paid by the lessee, but the rent remained at
1 The enrolments, of course, may exist, but Crown leases at this time are scat-
tered in various books and records, which are scarcely indexed at all and very
difficult to search.
2 Augmentation Office Misc. Books, vol. ccxxviii., fol. 148. Printed App. II. No. 8.
3 He seems to have left no will or administration, and his name has not been found
in any pedigree of the Venables family which the writer has met with.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIlTH CENTURY 69
315. 8d. The lease contains a very full description of the
rights and perquisites of the Hundred, and is a much more
elaborate affair than any of the earlier ones. One or two
changes which had gradually occurred in the form of the
lease are here worth noting. The fourteenth and fifteenth
century leases do not mention the rights and perquisites
of the bailiff or bedell, and we have been driven for our
information on these points to the Sheriffs accounts. The
lease of 1507 to Robert Trafford is a little more elaborate
in its terms, and it is noteworthy that it does not mention
the bailiff or bedell. The fact was that the description of
the lessee as a bedell was gradually dropping out, and the
title does not occur in the annual accounts after the com-
mencement of the reign of Edward VI. Both the bailiff
and the bedell became lost in the maze of words by which
it became the custom to describe the Hundred and its
rights, and, practically, the titles are only to be found in
England after about this date in a few towns, or as
applied to that other class of officer whose business it is to
serve writs.1 The leases become in point of form leases
of the Hundred, but there can have been no practical
difference in the position of the lessees, and the alterations
were probably only the outcome of the system of elaborate
conveyancing then in vogue. What the Crown lessees
got at this date in return for their rent, and what were
1 Sometimes called bailiffs errant or itinerant. In the reign of Henry VIII. David
Fraunceys was made bailiff errant for the Hundred of Wirral, but as for some reason
he could not lawfully hold the office, he was granted an annuity for life of 403. Signed
Bills (Welsh Records), 24 Oct. 9 Hen. VIII.
yo THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the sources of the revenue out of which they were to pay
such rent, may be seen on reference to the lease, but the
general nature of the rights has been already indicated,1
and it must not be supposed that the lengthy list of
privileges now enumerated contained anything new. On
the contrary, it is safe to say that in 1596 the actual
sources of the revenue of the lord of the Hundred were
not nearly so numerous as they had been many hundreds
of years before, and of all those that remained the actual
income had, no doubt, dwindled very much. It could
hardly have been argued that the fines and fees of the
Superior Courts of record held at Chester or at the Assizes,
or before the Justices of the Peace for the county,2 were
included in the lease, but the Crown lawyers took care to
make it clear that it did not include them, nor the fees
taken at the Court held by the Clerk of the Market,3 for
the collection of all of which they reserved liberty for the
officers of the Crown to enter the Hundred.
The lease to Venables expired in 1617, and for the
next eleven years the Hundred remained in the hands of
the Crown.
On November 5, 1628, a twenty-seven years' lease*
was granted to William Trafford (of Bridge Trafford),
1 Ante, p. 30.
2 The establishment in the reign of Henry VIII. of a regular and efficient supply of
Justices of the Peace for Cheshire would tend still further to reduce the business of
the Hundred Courts.
8 A royal official who held courts in every city, borough, and town for the trial of
weights and measures and questions as to the prices of commodities. He was super-
seded by 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. iii.
4 Land Rev. Enrol, vol. clvii. f. 122. Printed App. II. No. 9.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIIiH CENTURY 71
gentleman, by deed under the hands and seals of Sir
John Walter, Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, Sir
James Fullerton, one of the Gentlemen of the Bedchamber,
and Sir Thomas Trevor, Baron of the Court of Exchequer,
the trustees of the property of King Charles I. It ap-
pears from the lease (which, unlike the previous one and
the immediately subsequent ones, is in English) that four
years before Trafford had arranged for a lease for thirty-
one years and had paid a fine of ^10, but had never taken
up the lease. The rent of the new one remained 315. 8d.
as before, and Trafford agreed to provide "A sufficient
Stewarde skillful in the lawes to keepe the courtes within
the Hundred," and to pay his fees and also all the expenses
of keeping up the Courts. This clause does not again
appear, and may have been thought superfluous. Another
new obligation was to submit to the commissioners of the
King's revenue a statement of all the fines, issues, and
profits of the Hundred, so that the King's inheritance
may be the better known and preserved. A system of
enrolling the leases was now also definitely inaugurated.
This Trafford was a son of Thomas Trafford of Bridge
Trafford (who died in 1625) and Alice Massy, daughter of
William Massy of Puddington. William Trafford died
in 1636 and the lease somehow became vested in his
cousin, Sir William Massy of Puddington, Knight, who
was one of the trustees of the marriage settlement of
William Trafford's son and heir Thomas.1
1 Vide Inq. p.m. 13 Car. I.
72 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Sir William Massy took the Royalist side in the civil
war and assisted to hold Chester against the Parliament.
Upon the reduction of Chester he compounded for his
delinquency with a fine of ^1414, and it appears from his
papers1 that at that date (1646) he was possessed for
eight years yet to come of the franchise of the Hundred
of Wirral and certain casual profits within the same,
under the lease of 1628. We also are told that in ordi-
nary years the profits of the Hundred were then worth
£<\ a year more than the rent (£i, us. 8d.), a fact which
prepares us for an increase of the latter later on. The
steward at this time was one John Wilson, and he certifies
a list of fees of the Hundred Court, which has been pre-
served.2 One penny was charged for every "essoyne"
(or excused attendance at the Court), a summons cost 2d.,
whilst a fee of 4d. was payable on entry of an action, for
issuing execution, and for service of it. Sixpence for
"amerciament " was no doubt a fee payable in addition
to the fine. These figures seem small, but the value of
money in those days must not be forgotten.
Massy's lease ran out in 1655, and for the next few
years the Hundred remained in the hands of the Crown.
In 1661, Sir Charles Harbord, the Surveyor-General
of the Revenues of the Crown, instructed the Auditor to
make a new report upon the leases of the Hundred of
1 Printed in "The Cheshire Sheaf" (3rd Ser.), vol. i. p. 114. Mr. T. Helsby's
comments at p. 1 19 are wide of the mark.
2 Harl. MSS. 2078. f. 147. Wilson was also steward of Caldy Hundred Court,
then held for William Glegg of Gayton, a distant cousin of Sir William Massy. The
fees are identical save that no fee is mentioned for amercement.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIlTH CENTURY 73
Wirral. The reason for this report was an application,
in 1660, by one John Carter for a lease of the Hundred.
Apparently Carter was willing to pay 205. more rent
than his predecessor, but before a lease was granted
the Surveyor-General thought it desirable to obtain the
usual report upon the earlier ones. The report is pre-
faced by a Latin description of the Hundred and its
rights, practically the same as that contained in the
leases to Venables and Trafford, which are next referred
to. Then comes a memorandum in English, constituting
the report of the Auditor. After dealing with the two
last leases, he says: "The premisses were granted by
way of lease and not [by] way of custody, without the
clause of Si quis plus dare voluerit sine fraude vel malo
ingenio, but I find that the said William Trafford did
pay a fine of tenn pounds to his said Majestic when he
was Prince of Wales." This seems to require a little
explanation. When a Hundred was in the hands of a
sheriff or of a bailiff who held no lease, he held it as
"custos," and it was his duty, simply as an official, to
account for actual revenue ; he made no profit. On the
other hand, the farmer who took a lease paid his rent to
the Sheriff and made what he could. It was usual for
leases of this kind to contain a power1 to increase the
rent if a bond fide offer of more was forthcoming ; but a
1 The clause usually ran as follows : " Si quis sine fraude vel malo ingenio pro
firma predicta de incremento infra terminum predictum plus dare voluerit tune dictus
AB. tantum pro eadem soluere teneatur si firmam habere voluerit supra-dictam."
See the fee farm leases in the App. to Prof. Muir's " History of Municipal Government
in Liverpool."
74 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
system of fines was adopted instead in the case of the
Hundred leases.
Following upon the report1 (which is otherwise unin-
teresting) comes a Minute of the terms upon which the
desired lease will be granted, as follows : —
1 'This Perticular is made by my Lord Treasurer's
order of the 27th December last upon the humble Peticion
of John Carter for a lease of the premisses to be granted
unto him for one and twenty years in such manner as the
same were granted to William Trafford above mencioned
at the above said rent of xxxis. viiid. and twenty shillings
per annum de incremento, if your lordships think fitt in
lieu of a fine of Tenn pounds as was paid upon the
first lease. Provided that both the said rents be duly
paid at Michaelmas and the Annunciacion by equal por-
cions during the time or within forty dayes next past
either of the said feasts. And that the lease be enrolled
within six months after the date before the clerk of the
Pipe or else become voyd," &c.
In consequence of these recommendations the next
leases of the Hundred of Wirral are to be found enrolled
in the Pipe Office of the Exchequer.
The lease to John Carter, gentleman, for twenty-one
years at the increased rent of 515. 8d. per annum was
granted on May 12, 1662. 2 The obligation to render
1 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 2821.
8 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 2859. Printed App. II. No. 10.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIlTH CENTURY 75
a list of the profits of the franchise was enlarged to a
covenant, within three years, and in every following seventh
year, to lodge a schedule or rental, on parchment, of the
revenue from the Hundred, with the names and addresses
of all the inhabitants of the Hundred, and of the vills and
hamlets contributing to the revenue.
Whether any such rentals were ever filed is doubtful,
as no trace of them has been found. The obligation to
render them occurs in subsequent leases and can scarcely
have been an empty one. The information contained
in such documents would have been of considerable
interest.
Carter was probably the same person as the John
Carter who, a few years before, was made steward of
Denbigh by Charles II.1 His lease was due to run out
in 1683, but before that date it seems to have become
transferred, probably by sale, to Randulph or Randle Dod,
no doubt one of the Dods of Edge in Cheshire.
In 1679, Thomas Dod, perhaps a son or brother of
Randle, petitioned for a new lease of the "Stewardship
of Wirral." In view of the recent increase of rent, no
new survey was thought necessary, and the Crown surveyor
agreed to give the option of a thirty-one years' lease from
1679 on the surrender by Randulph Dod of the existing
one, or a twenty-seven years' lease from 1683. Dod chose
the former, and on the 25th November 1679 the new lease2
1 Grig. 12 Car. II. rot. 57.
2 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 3261. Printed App. II. No. II.
76 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
was granted at the old rental.1 Apparently the covenants
of the last lease had not been too carefully observed, and
pressure had had to be exercised on the lessee, but, as it
appears that no distress to enforce their observance was
allowed to be taken on grants of this kind, Dod had to
give a bond in £100 penalty to the King's Remembrancer
to carry out his obligations. Dod's lease of 1679 became
vested (whether by sale, descent, or otherwise is not clear)
in Edward Glegg of Irby in Wirral, the son of Edward
Glegg of Caldey Grange, by a second wife Anne. He
was born about 1658, and married Jane, daughter of
John Scorer, gentleman, of Westminster. She died in
1720, and was buried at Thurstaston. There are no
records of his lordship of the Hundred, which was now
in the hands of one of the most prominent families in
Cheshire and one resident in the Hundred ; and there it
remained for upwards of a hundred years. Edward Glegg
died on December 15, 1703, and by his will (which is dated
only ten days before his death) he left the bulk of his
property to Sir William Glegg of Gayton, his father-in-
law John Scorer, and his only brother John Glegg of
Tranmore, on trusts for his family. The will was proved
at Chester on January 29, 1703, by Scorer, and also in
October 1708 by the widow. It does not refer to the
lease of the Hundred, which passed to his executors.
The lease ran till 1710, but in 1704 it was renewed2
1 Cf. the rent of 475. paid in 1681 for the Hundred of Bucklow.
2 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 3801. Printed App. II. No. 12. Compare the rent
of £2, js. and £i as a heriot paid in 1701 for a lease of the Hundred of Bucklow.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIlTH CENTURY 77
by Scorer, the executor, for twenty-five years from 1710, at
the old rent of 515. 8d. The new lease from Queen Anne
took the form of a grant to Scorer in trust for John Glegg,
the son and heir of Edward Glegg of Irby, and then a
minor. Apparently there was some suggestion that
Edward Glegg had parted with a portion of the Hundred
and its rights, as in the lease we find a clause (which
does not appear again) providing that on proof by any
assignee of Edward Glegg of his right to a share of the
Hundred, the executor should assign to him a like part
of the new lease on payment of costs, &c. No such
person seems to have come forward.
John Glegg was a Justice of the Peace for Cheshire.
He married Frances, eldest daughter of Edward Birken-
head, and co-heiress with her sister Deborah, wife of
William Glegg of Grange, to the estates of her uncle,
Thomas Birkenhead of Backford Hall in Wirral, the
present residence of this branch of the Glegg family.
She was born in 1704, and survived her husband for
some years, dying in 1791.
The Crown lease was twice renewed during John
Glegg's life. In April 1734, a year before it would have
expired, a new lease1 of the "farm or custody of our
Hundred of Wirehall and of the Courts and perquisites
there" was obtained from George II. This lease was for
twenty-nine years from 1735 and at the old rent. Again,
1 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 4373. Printed App. II. No. 13. In this lease
the previous lessee is by mistake called " Peter Storer."
78 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
in March 1759, the lease was renewed1 for twenty-five
years from 1764. The rent remained at 513. 8d., and the
Hundred was now described as " parcel of the revenues
of the Crown of England."
The only Court Roll of the Hundred of Wirral that is
known belongs to this period. Unfortunately the roll
itself is missing, and the particulars that follow are taken
from a partial copy of it.2 It was written on three sheets
of foolscap, and appears to have been in two handwritings.
The main body of the record was probably written by the
steward, while the " presentments " seem to have been in
the writing of an illiterate "jurier," with additions by the
steward to explain them.
The roll is headed in the usual style as follows : —
Hundred of The Court Leet, Court Baron and View of ffrank
Worrall Plege of John Glegg gentlm. Held for the said
To wit Hundred the nineteenth Day of April in the seven-
teenth year of the Reigne of our Sovereigne Lord
George the Second and in the year of ourLorde 1744
before John Glegg gentm.
Then followed the names of the suitors of the Court, 304
in number, and coming from sixteen townships of Wirral,
viz. "Wallazey," " Pool ton and Seacomb," Liscard,
Higher " Bebbington," Prenton, Capenhurst, Pudding-
ton, Little Neston, Hooton, Ness, "Tranmore," "Caldie,"
Landican, Arrow, Ledsham, and Woodbank. Dr. Hume 3
1 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 5099. Printed App. II. No. 14.
2 Trans. Hist. Soc. of Lanes, and Ches., vol. xxvii. p. 183.
3 In Trans. Hist. Soc. (loc. cit.).
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIIrn CENTURY 79
notes that nearly all the suitors seem to have been house-
holders, which is not unnatural seeing that the obligation
to do suit and service at a Hundred Court was founded
in residence within its jurisdiction. Forty-three resided
in Tranmere, thirty-four in Wallasey, twenty-nine in Little
Neston, twenty-seven in Ness, eight at Ledsham, and six
at Landican and Woodbank.
The presentments are chiefly for non-attendance to do
suit and service at the Court, e.g. : —
" Every one that did not appear that do belong to this
Court this day we fine in one shilling each."
"The inhabittan of Puddingto[n] for not appeering at
this Coart in twelf pence each."
Nineteen persons were fined sixpence each for "beak
in " (breaking) the "size " of bread and ale.
" Walzey. We order every person that belongeth to
the pasture ditch, if a gap be broken down, after 24 hours
notis if not made up, to pay io/- for every default after
notis from ye constable or warned in the churchyard.
"We present Henery Bird, Mr. Hyde, Elizebeth Hill,
John Mulenex, John Ranford, James Ranford, Tho.
Bertels in 5/- each for breach of an order (of last Court
for not keeping up their pasture fence).
"We present Joseph Robison for taking a large tree
away being a weaf,1 in one pound.
1 No doubt blown down by the wind and a perquisite of the lord.
8o THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
" Capinhurst. We order John Mayson to cut and ditch
betwixt John Mayson poolhay corner and John Baxter's
poolhay corner betwixt and next Cort, in pain of io/-.
" Liskit. We order every person that turneth seep [sic]
out to the common without a separd shall pay twelve
pence each sheep.
" Tranmore. We order George Myres to take away the
thorns that ly in the gate in the Rode to Samuel friest's
holt, betwixt and the first of May next, in pain of twenty
shillings."
No civil proceedings in the nature of actions for debt,
trespass, &c., are mentioned, but it was not customary
to record these on the rolls, which would only contain the
names of the suitors at the annual View of Frankpledge,
and the presentments of the leet jury.
These entries may be said fairly to illustrate the petty
and yet useful jurisdiction of the Court in those days. It
is to be regretted that more of such rolls have not survived,
as they would throw much light on the history, develop-
ment, and customs of the Hundred of Wirral.1
1 That rolls were kept whilst the Court was in the hands of the Glegg family is
shown by this solitary roll of 1744, but Mr. Birkenhead Glegg of Backford Hall, the
present head of the Irby family, has been unable to show the writer any. He possesses
a fine series of rolls for his Manors of Irby and Greasby, running almost continuously
from 1692 to 1766 and from 1790 to 1820 (which it is hoped he may some day allow to
be examined) and, from the regularity and care with which these have been kept by
the Glegg's various stewards (who would probably also be stewards of the Hundred
Court) during a period almost exactly coinciding with the Gleggs' farm of the Court
of Wirral, it seems more than likely that rolls for the Hundred Court were equally
well kept. It is possible that they may yet be found.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIIxn CENTURY 81
It will be noticed at once that persons from only sixteen
out of the threescore or more townships which existed in
Wirral at this date appear to have owed suit and service
to the Hundred Court. In the absence of further rolls it
is unsafe to infer that these were the only townships at
this date within the jurisdiction of the Hundred view and
leet, but it is probably the fact. It must be remembered
that suitors who were bound to attend a manorial court leet
were excused from going to the leet of the Hundred, and
that a manorial View of Frankpledge released the tenants
of that manor from attendance at the Sheriff's Turn.1
Now there were a great number of manorial leets in
Wirral, and several persons were entitled to a View of
Frankpledge in various parts of the peninsula, and a care-
ful examination of the townships reveals the fact that the
ones absent from the Hundred roll are just those which
were, at some time or other, within a manorial leet or view.
On the other hand, those whose residents did suit at the
Hundred Court in 1744 seem to have been attached to no
manorial leet, except in two or perhaps three cases, which
may possibly be accounted for by the local leet jurisdic-
tion having lapsed, so causing them to come within the
leet of the Hundred. This explanation of the small
number of townships attending the Hundred Court is
not insisted upon, but seems a natural one.2 The fact
1 Stubbs" " Constitutional History," vol. i. p. 400.
2 The facts upon which this theory is put forward cannot be adduced here, but
are based upon the particulars of the courts leet in Wirral given in Ormerod (1882),
vol. ii.
F
82 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
that its leet jurisdiction was limited in this way would
not affect the civil or Court Baron jurisdiction of the
Hundred Court, which seems to have been exercised up
to the last more or less all over the Hundred.
The death of John Glegg occurred on May 14, 1768.
By his will, dated December 2, 1767, he left all his personal
property to his wife, and appointed her and his son John
(born December 6, 1732) executrix and executor. The
will was proved at Chester by the son alone on June 17,
1 769, but before that date it was thought proper to vest
the remaining- years of the lease of the Hundred in him.
This was effected by a deed,1 dated August 6, 1768, by
which, for a nominal consideration, the widow trans-
ferred the franchise to her son and took from him the
usual indemnity. Our knowledge of this deed is owing to
the obligation to enroll assignments, which was inserted
in leases after 1734.
A third Glegg now became lessee of the Hundred
of Wirral and held the office for thirty-eight years until
his death. In the meantime he renewed the lease in 1786
for twenty-seven years from ijSg2 and still at the old
rent of 515. 8d. which was fixed in 1662. No fine was
exacted on the new lease. This John Glegg, who re-
sided at Ashfield House, Great Neston, married his
cousin Betty Glegg in 1762, and died on March 6, 1804.
His will is dated July 9, 1802, and was proved at
1 Land Rev. Enrolments, vol. xvi. See App. II. No. 15.
2 Pipe Office, Crown Leases, No. 6012. Printed App. II. No. 16. Compare the
rent of £2, IDS. for the Hundred of Bucklow, raised in 1813 to £3, los.
HENRY VIII. TO END OF XVIIlTH CENTURY 83
Chester on May 15, 1804, by his widow. Under its
provisions the Hundred devolved on his son and heir,
afterwards Lieutenant-General Birkenhead Glegg (born
November i, 1765), who, therefore, became the lessee
of the lordship of Wirral for the twelve remaining years
of the Crown lease, which ran out in 1816. It was not
renewed, and thus the Hundred of Wirral passed out of
the hands of the Gleggs who had farmed it for upwards
of a century.
PART II
CHAPTER VIII
THE LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829
State of the Hundred Courts— William Button's attack— The Court of West
Derby — The Crown sells the Hundred — The Claremont Estate Act — John
Williams — The Crown grant — Wreck — Royal fish — Queen Elizabeth's
inquiry, 1595 — Treasure trove — Conviction of Williams for Forgery —
Transfer of the Hundred in Prison — Common Law Commission.
AT the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Hundred
Courts all over England had sunk very low. They had
long survived their usefulness ; the gradual fall in the
value of money rendered the limit of jurisdiction obsolete ;
their ancient duties were almost all performed by the
justices or by the police ; and, like many another institu-
tion which has lived too long, they became a nuisance.
Their cumbrous machinery of legal processes, ill adapted
for the trifling disputes for which it was put in motion,
was used as an engine of oppression. Rapacious stewards
and attorneys took advantage of the right to use almost
all the processes of a superior Court, to foment and
exploit petty disputes, to pile up bills of costs out of
all proportion to the case, and to extract payment by
iniquitous distresses to the ruin of the unfortunate debtor.
As, however, the Courts were chiefly in the hands of
84
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 85
titled or important county families, any attempt to dis-
pute such vested interests was not very likely in those
days to succeed.
In 1789 a vigorous onslaught upon the Hundred
Courts had been made by William Hutton, who was
one of the commissioners of the Birmingham Court of
Requests. A number of these local courts had been
established some years before for the recovery of small
debts, and Hutton actively advocated an extension of
their jurisdiction. Besides writing an account of his
own Court, he also published a pamphlet1 in which
he strongly contrasts the advantages of the Courts of
Requests (where there was no jury) with the abuses
existing in the Hundred Courts. He deals chiefly with
the Hundred Court of Hemlingford (Warwickshire), but
"in exhibiting one we see all," he says, and his de-
scription of a Hundred Court is well worth quoting :
"A Court chiefly applied to by the ignorant, and those
who delight in the sweet but poisonous feast of revenge
— a Court which multiplies the evils it was meant to
redress ; directed by craving leeches who suck the
deepest where there is no blood to spare." The feel-
ings of a stranger attracted to the Court by curiosity
are thus described : —
" While he breathes this polluted air, he will doubt
whether he breathes in a land of freedom. If he
1 "A Dissertation on Juries, with a Description of the Hundred Court":
Birmingham, 1789. Published as an Appendix to his "Courts of Requests," 1787.
86 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
happenes to be an antiquary, he will find this the only
species of antiquity in the neighbourhood that disgusts
him ; if a divine, he will have ocasion to warn his
hearers to avoid two places ; if a lawyer, he will wish
himself in one ; if he be no housekeeper,1 he will con-
gratulate himself that he is out of its reach ; and, if it
was possible he could, in any place, rejoice because he
possessed no property, it might be in this. He will
observe, they are seldom troubled with penetrating to
the root of the question, but content themselves with
the, fruit. He will also perceive the jury are composed
of the lowest class, collected from the shop, the street,
and the ale-house, who, having no character to keep,
have none to lose ; equally narrow in understanding
and in fortune ; humbly submitting to direction, and,
by echoing back the words of the Judge, become the
magpies of the Court. A degenerate Court can only
be served by a degenerate Jury ; in both the observer
will discover a family likeness, they exactly tally, but
with this difference, while one carries off the golden
fleece, the other looks wistfully on."
The methods of business can best be gathered from
the following extract : —
" While an attorney frequently concerned in the
Hundred Court sat smoaking his pipe in a public-
house, he observed to the landlord, * if he had any
money owing him, he could easily recover it without
1 The jurisdiction of the Hundred Courts was founded in residence.
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 87
trouble or expense.' 'I have none,' replied the land-
lord, to this silver bait, 'but what I expect in due
course;' 'yes,' answered his wife with a smile, 'John
M owes for two mugs of ale.' With this slender
authority the attorney proceeded against him in the
Hundred Court for four-pence. The expence soon
mounted to more than two pounds, at which price his
effects, perhaps, had been rated, and poor John's bed
was taken from under him with his other trifling chattels,
and he with his family despoiled of housekeeping. The
Bailiff of the Court who took the distress and sold the
property, forgot to render an account, or return the
overplus, for which John was directed to sue him in
the Court of Requests. The landlord appeared and de-
clared he never gave, nor intended to give, an order
to pursue him in any Court, believing he would pay
him without, and that his wife meant no more than a
jest. Upon enquiry there appeared four shillings due
to John which the Court awarded against the Bailiff,
who, being a stranger to tender sensations and habitu-
ate'd to acts of violence, was in no way abashed ; but
of all the persons in the Court, seemed the only one
who felt no pity for this hard case, a case where the
little delinquent was surprised into ruin, and where the
crime and the punishment bore no proportion."
Probably the Court of Wirral was not at this date
quite so scandalous an institution as the one depicted
by Hutton, but similar abuses were to be found all over
88 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the country. Across the Mersey the Wapentake or
Hundred Court of West Derby, then held by the Earl
of Sefton, as hereditary steward under a grant from
Henry VI., became a public scourge, and a "Waping-
tax " was a well-known weapon with which to threaten
one's neighbours upon the slightest excuse. In 1818
a request of Egerton Smith, the editor of the Liverpool
Mercury, to be furnished with instances of abuses in the
Hundred Courts, produced, amongst others, the follow-
ing letter, written by an unlucky man against whom a
neighbour had commenced an action for "words" (in
which a penny damages would frequently carry five or
six pounds of costs) : —
PLEAS SUR.
The whole concarn of the waping tax was in this
way. My wief lost a new cloak and the woman that
lived in our room was in and out for too or three ours
aftar we went to bed, then I went the next night and
spoke to hur why she was in and out tell 2 or 3 in
the morning. She went to Mr. in the square and
sent me a waping tax, which I was very straing in
the concarn of it and what was best to do. the wief
and I went to and told him my situatiun and
It was very roagish mater, that what I did say to the
woman was in the room only both and no witness.
All this would not doo I must pay to him £1, IDS. od.
or elce my goods must go. we praid and tould him
that we had 5 small children and was very hard with
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 89
us. then he said he would take £i, 55. 7^d. then the
we agreed to pay so much a wick, so that we paid
so far as us. and then my wief throw povarty mised 2
wick, and the 3 wick on wensday at noon he sent 3
of his booms to our house. Wei thay would not go
out of the house without £2, los. 7^d. more, then
oi did as wel with them as oi could, then they did
agree to take £it 55. od. and pay to the other
£it 55. 7^d., so i did at 2s. per wick. So to remain
your humble sarvant
DAVID EDWARDS In Crump St.
To the credit of the Earl of Sefton it must be said
that he was unaware of the existence of such scandalous
practices in connection with his Court, and he at once had
new rules prepared to prevent such occurrences in future.
After the expiration of Glegg's lease of the Hundred
of Wirral, one might therefore have thought the Crown
would have refrained from giving to any one the oppor-
tunity of pillaging the poor of Cheshire in the guise of
justice. It was, however, too much to expect that in the
reign of George III. official notice would be taken of such
matters, and not only did the Crown prolong the existence
of the Wirral Court, but they parted for ever with any
control over it. By selling the franchise outright they
placed in the hands of a succession of unscrupulous
persons a weapon which, for nearly forty years, hung
threateningly over the heads of the inhabitants of Wirral
90 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
or descended to maim and cripple them. During1 the few
years following the expiration of Glegg's lease the Crown
had several applications from other persons for the Hun-
dred, but eventually the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests (in whom Crown franchises were now vested) de-
cided to sell it by public auction. Two reasons appear to
have influenced them. In the first place they were advised
that the possession of the lordship of Wirral would very
probably attract one of the large landowners in the
Hundred, such as Sir Thomas Stanley (of Hooton) or an-
other, who might consider it an honourable appurtenance
to his estates, and in the second place the Commissioners
were busy selling- Crown lands under the Claremont
Estate Act.
Owing to frequent improvident grants by the Crown
of royal revenues and franchises, particularly by William
III., various Acts, dating from the first year of Queen
Anne's reign, had been passed, the effect of which was
that all grants or leases from the Crown of any royal
manors or franchises for any longer term than thirty-one
years or three lives were (with certain immaterial excep-
tions) void. It was necessary, therefore, before the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests could sell any of
them, that they should have power to do so by Act of
Parliament. The power to sell in this case was given by
an Act1 passed in 1815 "for ratifying the purchase of the
Claremont Estate and for settling the same as a residence
1 56 Geo. III. c. 115.
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 9'
for Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte Augusta
and His Serene Highness Leopold George Frederick,
Prince of Coburg and Saalfield."
Under this Act the manors of Esher and Milbourne,
together with the mansion-house " Claremont," l were
bought by the Crown for ,£66,000, which was payable in cash
produced by the sale of 3 per cent, consolidated annuities.
The property was vested in the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests, who were given power to sell Crown lands
and franchises in order to raise the money to replace
the 3 per cent, annuities which had been sold; and the
Hundred franchise of Wirral was one of the properties
sold under this Act. Its annual value by a recent survey
was at this time set down as only £i, i5s.,2 although the
rent last reserved was, as we know, ^"2, us. 8d.
The Hundred Court was advertised for sale by Messrs.
Potts & Co. of Chester, on November 16, 1819. As a
further inducement to purchasers, three privileges were
added to the franchise which had never been leased out
with it by the Crown. They were the rights to " wreck,"
to "royal fish," and to " treasure trove"; in other re-
spects the franchise as offered for sale was the same as
that possessed by the Gleggs.
1 Claremont had been built by Lord Clive at a cost of £100,000 on the site of a
house built by Sir John Vanbrugh, the architect. After passing through various
hands, it was acquired as above for a royal residence. Princess Charlotte died
there in 1817, and the King of the Belgians appropriated it for the use of the royal
Orleans family after their exile from France in 1848. Queen Victoria acquired the
property in 1882-83, and it became the residence of the Duchess of Albany.
2 Fourth Report, Commissioners of Woods, &c., 1823.
92 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
The auction took place at the " Pied Bull," the quaint
old hostelry still standing in Northgate, Chester, and the
strange sight was witnessed of a law court, with all its
attendant rights, being put up to sale to the highest
bidder. John Williams, attorney, of Liverpool, offered
the most money, and the Hundred of Wirral was knocked
down to him for ,£230.
Williams was a son of Samuel Williams of Great
Neston in Wirral. He appears as an attorney from 1816
onwards, and had his residence in Nelson Street, St. James,
Liverpool. His office was in Union Court, Castle Street,
which is still tenanted mainly by lawyers. In subsequent
years Williams resided in Seacombe on account of his
health. So far as can be gathered, and up to a certain
point, he seems to have been a respectable person and to
have had a fair practice as a solicitor.
The sale was completed on the 8th April 1820, upon
which day the ^230 was paid into the Bank of England.
A copy of the deed of grant appears in Mortimer's "His-
tory of the Hundred of Wirral,"1 but it is very inaccurate
and incomplete. In this copy the price is stated to be
^500. It seems scarcely likely that this was a clerical
error, and it is probable that an incorrect copy of the
grant was purposely supplied to Mortimer in order to
magnify the importance of the Hundred Court. This
supposition is strengthened by the fact that the copy in
Mortimer omits entirely a long paragraph in the original
1 Pp. 154-5. A complete copy appears at Appendix II. No. 17 to this book.
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 93
grant containing various excepted fines and amercements,
and certain powers, which were reserved to the Crown.
The owner of the Court would, no doubt, be quite willing
to create the impression that a high price had been paid
for the privileges, and that his powers were not in any
way curtailed.1
A few words must be said about the new rights which
Williams succeeded in obtaining.
The right to "wreck" was essentially a royal pre-
rogative and was frequently granted out to lords of
manors. No doubt Williams thought it might constitute
a right of considerable value, having regard to the situa-
tion of the Hundred of Wirral. Dr. Redhead (vicar of
Rock Ferry from 1844 and previously curate at Bebing-
ton) states he did not think that Williams had any idea
that he was entitled to flotsam and jetsam, but that
Moreton (who, as we shall see, subsequently became
Lord of the Hundred) examined his powers more closely
and found himself entitled to these things and more of
which his predecessors had not dreamt. It is noticeable,
however, that there is no express mention of flotsam and
jetsam in the deed of 1820, and it was decided in the year
1601 2 that in a royal grant of "wrecks," things flotsam
and jetsam were not included, but only wreck actually
thrown up or stranded on the coast.
By granting "wreck" in the Hundred of Wirral to
1 Mr. Peacock, the steward, was one of the original subscribers to Mortimer's
book, and doubtless supplied the so-called copy of the deed.
* Constable's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 107.
94 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Williams the Crown were clearly infringing on the rights
of the numerous lords of manors there who already
enjoyed the right to it, and we shall see later on that the
power of the Crown to make such a grant was challenged
and the claim of the Lord of Wirral disallowed. Pro-
bably " wreck" was deliberately inserted by the Crown
officials, as they were at this time actively engaged in
urging the Crown's claim both to it and to foreshore all
over the kingdom.
The right to royal fish — i.e. whale and sturgeon cast
ashore or caught near the coast — was one frequently
granted away by the Crown elsewhere, but in the case of
Cheshire it seems to have been jealously preserved.1 The
capture of a sturgeon was a matter of some importance.
Among the records of the Corporation of Chester are
copies of letters from the Mayor of Chester to the Lord
Chamberlain in July 1593, announcing the capture of a
sturgeon, which was brought before the Mayor. This fish
seems to have been taken on the Wirral side of the Dee,
near Blacon, and a dispute arose between the Mayor and
Richard Trevor of Trevallin, who alleged it was taken on
the Welsh side of the river, and belonged to him as Vice-
Admiral or representative of the Lord High Admiral.
Perhaps it was in consequence of this dispute that Queen
1 By decree of the Admiralty Court, 20 Hen. VIII., the Prior of Birkenhead was
declared entitled to royal fish, wreck, flotsam, jetsam, lagan, deodands, &c., within
certain limits on the Mersey. Harl. MSS. 2010, f. 208 (48). But in his plea to Quo
warranto, 27 Ed. III., the Prior had disclaimed wreck and royal fish ; and it does not
appear how the Priory subsequently acquired the right to them.
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 95
Elizabeth appointed a special commission1 in 1596 con-
sisting1 of Peter Warburton, serjeant-at-law, and Hugh
Beston, the Receiver-General for North Wales, to inquire
into the capture of royal fish on the coast of Cheshire.
The letters patent recited that it had been a palatine
franchise from time immemorial to have all royal fish,
such as whales, sturgeon, and "thorlhede" (porpoise),
caught in or about the shores of Cheshire, brought to the
Castle of Chester, where the customary fee was paid to
the captor. But for some years the capture of such fish
had been concealed and not reported, so that the per-
quisites were being lost. Accordingly, juries were to be
impanelled at the Hundred Courts of Wirral, Eddisbury,
and Bucklow as those bordering on the sea and the rivers
Dee and Mersey, and witnesses examined, in order to ascer-
tain on oath what royal fish had been caught and by whom.
The commissioners were given power to enter the liberties,
and were to make a report to the next county sessions
at Chester, and preserve the right of the Crown to fines.
Williams, therefore, obtained a right which at one
time was considered of considerable value. But the
silting up of the Dee and the growing shipping of the
Mersey made it unlikely that he or his successors would
benefit by the capture of many whales or sturgeons in
the nineteenth century.2
1 C. R. R. 261, m. 7, 5. A translation is printed in " The Cheshire Sheaf" (3rd
Sen), vol. iv. p. 6.
2 A curious seventeenth-century ballad giving- a description of a strange and
miraculous fish (a whale) cast up on the meads of the Hundred of Wirral, is printed
in "The Cheshire Sheaf" (3rd Sen), vol. iii. p. 6.
96
The right to " treasure trove" does not seem ever
to have been exercised, but as the records of coroners'
inquests are not preserved, it has not been possible to
make sure.
From this date to the abolition of the Court of the
Hundred its reputation rapidly declined. Under the
guise of the administration of justice, the process of the
Court was used to oppress and harass the inhabitants
of Wirral. Protests and appeals were unavailing, as
the power of the Court was clear and the title of its
owner beyond dispute. Owing, however, to the fact
that there were very few newspapers circulating in
Wirral at this date there has been difficulty in ob-
taining definite information of the proceedings of the
Court. Dr. Redhead records, however, that ^100 as
a fine or damages were obtained by Williams from
Archdeacon Clarke, vicar of Eastham, for an informal
committal as magistrate, for which he was summoned
before the Hundred Court, whilst a similar claim
against the rector of Bebington, caused by a mistake
of the Justice's clerk, was compounded for ^5 and ex-
penses.
But John Williams did not enjoy the fruits of his
enterprise long, as, in 1829, he was convicted of forgery.
The conviction in those days would have had the effect
of causing, by attainder, a forfeiture to the Crown of
all his possessions, including the right to the Hundred
Court, but, by previously executing a mortgage of all
LORDSHIP OF JOHN WILLIAMS, 1820-1829 97
his property, he avoided this. A small pamphlet,1 printed
in Liverpool, gives an account of the trial, which took
place at Lancaster Assizes before Mr. Justice Bailey on
the 1 3th March 1829, and excited great and painful in-
terest. It appeared that in 1825 Williams had forged the
signature of one William Garner to a mortgage deed of
land in Birkenhead in favour of a Miss Mather (afterwards
Mrs. M'Clelland) who was one of Williams' clients. This
lady advanced ^650 on the forged deed, and Williams
misappropriated the money. It is believed, and at any
rate it is charitable to suppose, that Williams obtained
an advance from his father whilst in prison awaiting trial,
in order to make restitution to Miss Mather. Whether
this was his object, or whether it was done to avoid for-
feiture, or to raise money for his defence, is unknown,
but by mortgage deeds 2 of 23rd and 24th February
1829, he transferred the Hundred Court and all the
rest of his property to his father, Samuel Williams,
in return for an advance of ,£600 and further future
advances not exceeding in all ^1000. The result of this
transaction, effected probably in view of his certain con-
viction, was that Williams divested himself of what is
called the legal estate in the Hundred of Wirral, and,
by his conviction, only forfeited the right to pay off the
mortgage and so get his property back. The position
was curiously complicated by the fact that he himself
1 " The Trial of John Williams for Forgery," printed by W. Bethell, No. 9 William-
son Street, Liverpool, 1829.
3 In the possession of F. E. Roberts, Esq., solicitor, Chester.
G
98 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
as Lord of the Hundred was entitled to the property of
convicted felons.
The bill of indictment at the trial was thirty feet long
and contained sixteen counts and 500 law folios of words.
Williams was sentenced to death, but the jury recom-
mended him to mercy on the score of his previous good
conduct to his wife and four children. Before leaving
the assizes the judge reprieved him, and eventually his
sentence was commuted to transportation for life. Ac-
cording to Mrs. Gamlin and Dr. Redhead, the trans-
ported convict (called by the latter "Roger" Williams)
eventually became very wealthy in the colonies and kept
up a large establishment there. However this may be,
he disappears entirely from the history of the Hundred
Court.
In 1828 Common Law Commissioners had been ap-
pointed to inquire into the extent of the jurisdiction and
authority of all borough and other local courts throughout
the Kingdom, but, although the Hundred Court of Wirral
appears in the list of courts,1 no returns were made to
the inquiries of the commissioners. The reason was
possibly the conviction of John Williams, and the fact
that his father had not, when their report was issued, re-
started the sittings of the Court.
1 4th Report, Pt. II. App. i. 38.
CHAPTER IX
THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 1829-1853
Samuel Williams — John Peacock, the steward — Parliamentary Return for the
Court — Number of cases — Distringas and Replevin — Profits — Dr. Redhead's
effort to extinguish the Court — Sittings at Neston — Death of Samuel Williams
— His will— Bequest of the Hundred to his grandson, Samuel Spencer.
SAMUEL WILLIAMS was now, by virtue of the deed of
1829, the Lord of the Hundred of Wirral, and owner of
all the rights possessed by his son. He resided at Great
Neston, and was born in the year 1768, so that he was
sixty-one years old when he became Lord of Wirral. He
was a man of little or no education.
There is not very much information available of the
history of the Court whilst he owned it, but there is no
doubt he took advantage of his rights. Probably the
Court was not active again until 1835, when, as was
customary and necessary, a member of the legal profes-
sion was appointed by Williams as steward and judge,
to preside over and control the proceedings of the Court.
John Peacock, who was appointed steward of the Hundred
Court, was born about the year 1798. He was a solicitor,
and in 1829 he became a member of the Liverpool Law
Society, which had then been founded only two years.
He was president of the Society in 1843-44, and was the
founder of the late firm of Liverpool solicitors called
99
ioo THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Peacock, Cooper, & Gregory. Mr. Peacock died on the
24th May 1886, aged eighty-eight, and was buried in
Smithdown Cemetery, Liverpool.
From a Parliamentary Return of I84O1 we can obtain
some official details of the Wirral Hundred Court at this
period furnished by the steward. The jurisdiction of
the Court was there stated to extend over the Hundred
of Wirral : and the Court had cognisance of all debts
and demands under 403. (a limit fixed, as we have seen,
by the statute of Gloucester in the time of Edward I.).
The officers of the Court at this date were the steward
and the owner Williams, who acted as clerk. The duty
of the latter was to issue writs, to file process, and
conduct the ordinary business of the Court, but he was
not allowed to issue execution in any case without per-
sonally making the steward acquainted with the circum-
stances. The office of the Court (presumably at Neston)
was open daily from 10 to 4 for all purposes connected
with its business, and the steward sat every fourth
Monday for the trial of causes, hearing motions, &c.
The extent of the business is shown by the fact that in
1836 there were 195 suits entered, in 1837, 191, and in
1838, 181, and that at the time of the Return, there
were 138 actions pending in which the officer of the
Court was receiving the debt and costs by instalments.
1 Relating to Courts of Requests, Courts of Conscience, and other local courts.
Parl. Papers, vol. xli. It appears from this Return that the only other Hundred
Courts alive at this date in Cheshire were those of Bucklow and Macclesfield — neither
of which were doing much business.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 1829-1853 101
Among the processes of the Court mentioned in the
Return was that of "distringas," which, in the Hundred
Courts, operated to create great hardship. Upon pro-
ceedings being commenced to recover, say, a debt of
2S. 6d., the defendant, probably a poor person, had to
enter an appearance to the action, and unless he could
afford to pay an attorney los. for doing so, what was
known as a "distringas " was levied upon his goods to
compel him to appear, and all his property could be
taken and sold by way of penalty. The proceeds did not
go in any way in reduction of the debt, and the distringas
might be levied three different times unless an appear-
ance was entered by the defendant. The severity and
injustice of this process was one of the strongest argu-
ments for the abolition of the Hundred Courts.1
Another process which caused great hardship and
oppression was that of " replevin" which consisted in
a distraint upon the goods and chattels of the person in
default who could only "replevy" or take them back upon
complying with the order of the Court. This process was
chiefly used to exact payment of fines, but also to enforce
the attendance of jurors, whose goods were seized and held
until they did suit and service to the Hundred Court.2
1 See a petition for the abolition of the Hundred Court of Hemlingford, set out in
an interesting paper on "The Hundreds of Warwickshire," by B.Walker, A.R.I.B.A.,
vol. xxxi., Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological Society.
2 The cost of issuing any process was at this date not less than 8s. sd., whilst the
fees alone in the case of a trial by jury exceeded the limit of the Court's jurisdiction and
ranged from £2, gs. 6d. to £2, 153. There was an additional charge of 6d. per mile for
serving the summons and a fee of 8d. to the bailiff for doing so.
102 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
The Return already mentioned states that in the
three years 1836 to 1838 there were thirty-three execu-
tions, all against the goods of the debtor, as there was
no power to issue one against the person. The steward
adds a note that an execution was never allowed to
issue if it could possibly be avoided, as it was often
ruinous to the parties, who were generally labouring
men ; and in all cases before issuing it, the clerk of the
Court was required to send a printed circular intimating
to the parties the consequence of not paying the debt
and costs. It seems likely that this explanatory and
gratuitous note was caused by the complaints of the
oppressive nature of the proceedings of the Court, which
were being made about this time. A further note states
that as a considerable part of the business of the Court
came from Birkenhead, the clerk of the Court attended
in the neighbourhood every week for the convenience
of suitors.
The net profits of the Court were at this date equally
divided between the owner and the steward, and the
Return states that "for the last three years they amounted
to ^285, 93. 3d." Presumably this is the aggregate for
the three years and not the annual figure. It represents
less than ^100 per annum for division between Williams
and his steward, and it seems somewhat strange that a
man of Peacock's position in his profession should have
found it worth while to sit every month and to manage
the Court for ^50 a year.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 1829-1853 103
Dr. Redhead l gives an account of the proceedings of
the Wapentake Court about this date, and when he was
curate of Bebington, in which he relates his efforts to
extinguish the Court owing to the unjust and oppressive
nature of its proceedings. Dr. Redhead states that about
the year 1834 the possessor of the Court was "John
Williams, the father of Roger, both attorneys, the latter
having been transported in 1833." There seems to be no
record of any one named Roger Williams ever having been
connected with the Court, nor was there a Roger Williams,
attorney ; and there is no doubt, as we have seen, that it
was John Williams the son who was transported, and
Samuel Williams the father who owned the Court in 1834.
Dr. Redhead goes on to say that at the time "the County
Courts Bill, which extinguished all minor courts was
agitated," and that he endeavoured, by appeals to Lord
Tollemache, Sir Philip Egerton, and others, to get the
Wapentake Court of Wirral included in the schedule, but
was unsuccessful. Probably he referred to the Bill which
became the County Courts Act, 1846, and contained a
schedule of local Courts of Request, which were thence-
forth to be held as County Courts, and to which the
County Court rules and regulations were to apply. As
the Hundred Court of Wirral was not a Court of Request,
and had not been constituted by Act of Parliament, it
would not naturally be one of the Courts to appear in the
schedule, and special provision would have had to be
^
1 In " A Free Village Library."
io4 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
made in the Act for its extinction, which Dr. Redhead
failed to obtain. A special Act for the purpose was
suggested, but the expense of obtaining it was prohibi-
tive. Dr. Redhead's efforts were, however, so far suc-
cessful that Williams ceased to harry his parishioners.
The establishment of these Courts of Requests and their
development into the new County Courts was another
nail in the coffin of the Hundred Courts.
During the ownership of Samuel Williams the Court
was held at Neston (then the largest township in Wirral)
in the building situated at the northern corner of what is
known as Pykes Weint. There Dr. Redhead appeared
to intercede on behalf of several poor persons who had
been fined or summoned, and found the old man Williams
seated in a chair placed on a table. (Possibly this was
before Peacock was appointed to preside as steward.) In
reply to a demand for his authority, Williams said he had
bought his privileges for a thousand pounds and there he
would sit in spite of Dr. Redhead or any one else ; but he
added, "Give me my money and I will give up my rights."
If Williams was speaking the truth, then it would seem
that, in addition to the ^600 advanced to his son whilst in
prison, he had made the further advances necessary to
bring the amount owing on the mortgage of 1829 up to
the figure of £1000 contemplated by the deed, but it will
be seen later on that he refers in his will to the amount
owing as only ^600.
In spite of his age, Samuel Williams continued to hold
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, 1829-1853 105
the Court, certainly until 1847, as Mortimer in his " History
of Wirral " (published in that year) mentions that he was
then holding" it. The old man was, however, in his dotage,
and ceased to hold the Court for the last few years of his
life. He died on May 14, 1853, aged eighty-five, and was
buried at Great Neston parish church on the i8th May.
His will was proved at Chester on i6th October of the
same year. It was dated July 23, 1850, and in it he is
described as "a gentleman." He appointed his friends
James Woodward of Great Neston, schoolmaster, and
Benjamin Maddocks of the same place, butcher, his
general executors. He left legacies to his grandson,
Samuel Spencer, and his grand-daughter, Sarah Jones,
the children of his deceased daughter, Jane Jones. He
bequeathed to his grandson, Samuel Spencer, the ^600
due in respect of the mortgage of 1829, and devised to
him the Hundred^ of Wirral and all the other property
included in the mortgage. Further, he appointed Spencer
as executor in respect of the ^600, although (he says in
his will) "I do not expect the same to be recovered."
The will was witnessed by "his friend" John Peacock,
the steward. The value of his personal estate (other than
the ^600 due on the mortgage) was under ^2000. A
second grant of probate was made on the 23rd August
1854 to Samuel Spencer as executor in respect of the
;£6oo. Apparently he had not considered it worth while
till then to prove his title to the mortgaged Hundred
franchise, but there is with the probate papers at Chester
io6 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
a letter, dated at Liverpool on August 19, 1854, from
Robert Grace, solicitor, to the registrar of wills, Chester,
saying that Samuel Spencer had sold his interest in the
Hundred of Wirral, which was given to him under his
grandfather's will, to Grace's client, Mr. Samuel Holland
Moreton, for ^100, less expenses.
Two new and striking characters now appear upon
the scene, and the remainder of the history of the
Hundred Court centres round their proceedings.
CHAPTER X
THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON
Sale of the Hundred to Moreton — Account of him — The Wapentake Court
revived at Neston, 1854 — Robert Grace, the steward — His disreputable
character — Contempt of Court — Mr. Thomas Smith's experience — His
appointment as affeeror — Oath of affeeror — Fines for encroachments —
Unwilling jurymen — Fines of Bebington residents — Jurisdiction over high-
ways enforced — The Railway Company forced to repair the bridge at Tran-
mere — The reeve and ale-taster — Description of the Court at Tranmere Castle
Hotel — Moreton claims the foreshore — Cases at the Wapentake Court.
THE notorious Samuel Holland Moreton was himself a
solicitor, and so far as he is connected with the Hundred
Court, he appears nearly always to have been in alliance
with Grace ; probably it was Grace's idea that Moreton
should acquire, and exploit for what they were worth,
the rights of the Hundred Court, which had fallen into
disuse during the last years of the life of Samuel Williams
and had never been exercised by Spencer. At any rate,
working, as it was rumoured at the time, upon the
ignorance or poverty of Spencer, they induced him to
part with his rights for the paltry sum of ^99, 193.
The transaction was carried out by a deed,1 dated
September 23, 1854, made between Spencer and More-
ton, whereby Spencer, under the powers of sale given
1 In the possession of F. E. Roberts, Esq., solicitor, Chester.
107
io8 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
to his grandfather by the mortgage of 1829, transferred
to Moreton all the rights over the Hundred of Wirral
contained in the Crown grant of 1820.
Samuel Holland Moreton was born about 1794. He
was the son of a cobbler, and in his early days was
himself a shoemaker, but forsook that occupation for
the more remunerative one of lending money. He also
in later years carried on the business of a licensed
victualler in Liverpool. In 1833 he was admitted as a
solicitor, and appears in the Law List, with some excep-
tions, from that date up to the time of his death. He
does not seem to have practised his profession to any
great extent, but he continued his money lending, from
which the greater part of his fortune was derived. At
one time he lived at Rose Place, Liverpool, and had
an office in Moorfields. In subsequent years he lived
in Hunter Street, but having acquired some property
in Shaw's Brow, he resided there until his death. He
was a member of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1838
he married Agnes Bell, who was one of a family of
twenty-one (twenty girls and one boy), the children of
a Liverpool minister !
Moreton is described as a man of avaricious and
penurious tendencies, combined with a certain eccen-
tricity of manner which served to cloak his real char-
acter. He seems to have been entirely unscrupulous,
and, whilst it was in his hands and under the steward-
ship of Robert Grace, the reputation of the Wapentake
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 109
Court of Wirral became blacker than ever. At the
time when he purchased the Court he was comparatively
well off, and the suggestion that the money he left at
his death was made by him out of the Court has no
foundation.
Moreton was not long before he acted upon the rights
acquired from Spencer, for in less than a month l we find
in most of the local papers the following paragraph,
obviously inspired by him : —
"The Neston Wapentake Court which had fallen
into disuse for some years, has again been revived, and
held its first sitting on Monday at Great Neston. The
Steward or Judge of the Court is Mr. Moreton, Solicitor
of this town, who has appointed Mr. Robert Grace,
attorney, to be his deputy. Mr. Samuel Spencer, late
district officer of the Birkenhead County Court, has
been appointed High Bailiff of the Court. The object
of the Wapentake is the recovery of small debts, and it
will, we hear, besides sitting at Neston, hold adjourned
sittings at Birkenhead and Liscard for the convenience
of suitors."
It will be observed that the civil or Court Baron
jurisdiction of the Court is alone referred to, the Court
Leet or quasi-criminal side being discreetly omitted from
the notice. Spencer, it will be seen, received an appoint-
1 October 21, 1854.
i io THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
ment, perhaps as part of the bargain effected with him
by Moreton. The first sitting of the Court was no doubt
formal, and no business seems to have been transacted.
Robert Grace, generally known as "Bob" Grace,
who was really the steward and judge, was born about
1810. He also was a solicitor, and his name appears in
the Law List fairly regularly from 1831. Early in his
career he lived in Olive Mount and his office was in
South Castle Street, but subsequently he went to live
at Holt Cottage, Tranmere. He was a man of great
ability, but a most eccentric and disreputable character.
He had a high idea of his importance as steward, and
on one occasion when the jurisdiction of his Court was
disputed, he is reported to have exclaimed, "Sir, I
would have you know that my Court has jurisdiction over
everything except murder, piracy, and high treason."1
The boys in the streets of Tranmere, where the Court
was often held, were in the habit, in consequence of his
important air, of calling him " Lord Derby," and once
when Grace was passing through the streets some of
them made a chaffing reference to "Lord Derby's cocks
and hens," which seems to have annoyed him. He
struck one of them on the head with a bag containing
a legal tome entitled " Roscoe on Evidence," which, as
Grace's solicitor remarked, "had given many a hard
knock in its time." For this assault Grace was fined.2
1 " W," in Liverpool Daily Post, Nov. 2, 1900.
3 Liverpool Chronicle^ July 14, 1855.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 1 1 1
He was also fined on another occasion for being drunk
and creating a disturbance at the overseer's office at
Tranmere.1 The overseer stated that "the judge" made
a point of resorting to his house on all occasions when
he so far forgot his judicial dignity as to give way to
indulgence in drink, and that the day after the disturb-
ance he added insult to injury by summoning the over-
seer to serve as a juror to the Wapentake Court.
Grace survived several years after Moreton's death in
1869, and died on February 14, 1874, being found lying
head downwards at the bottom of the stairs of his office
in South Castle Street. There was no evidence how he
came to fall, but he had been seen shortly before in a
state of intoxication.
His brains probably suggested to Moreton the acquisi-
tion of the Court as a means of exacting money, and he
seems to have been responsible for many of the remarkable
proceedings that occurred during his stewardship. He
presided in Court and there exercised his considerable
legal knowledge in devising or unearthing fresh and safe
methods of extortion. One of the safest and least assail-
able was the power to fine for contempt of Court. As
disobedience to any order was treated as contempt, it can
easily be imagined how dangerous a privilege such a power
could be in the hands of unscrupulous persons such as
Moreton and Grace. Although the Wapentake Court had
no power to imprison for debt, it could do so for contempt,
1 Liverpool Chronicle > Sept. i, 1855.
ii2 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
and it is said (though the writer cannot check this) that
Moreton actually had persons lodged in the county gaol
until a fine and an apology were forthcoming.
Some interesting information as to the doings of More-
ton's Court comes from Mr. Thomas Smith, aged eighty-
five, now living in Cleveland Street, Birkenhead. In 1855
Smith was living at Windle Hill, near Hinderton, in Wirral,
and one day when he was at work in his garden, a man
called to him to come at once to the Wapentake Court
sitting at the Inn known as the Shrewsbury Arms, Hin-
derton. He treated the summons as a joke, whereupon
two men were sent and Smith was haled to the Court in
his shirt-sleeves. On his arrival he found Moreton,
Grace, and others seated at a table spread with food and
drink. Grace informed him they were about to fine him
£20 for not coming at once, and that it was no joking
matter. Smith was appointed one of the "affeerors" to
the Court (an honour which he shared with Shakespeare,
who held that post at Stratford-on-Avon). "Affeerors"
or "taxators" were, by the effect of Magna Charta, a
necessary feature of Hundred Courts. They were persons
who, upon oath, settled and moderated the fines and
amercements imposed for offences arbitrarily punishable,
or that had no express penalty appointed by statute. No
such fine could be inflicted by the Court until approved of
by the affeerors, except in the case of a suitor present in
Court who refused to act on the jury, in which case the
steward could inflict a fine without consulting the affeerors.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 113
It will thus be seen that the position was a most respons-
ible one. The oath of the affeeror was as follows : —
"You shall swear that you will well and truly tax,
assess, and affier all the amerciaments presented in this
Court, and in doing of that you shall not spare any for
love, feare, nor affection, nor raise nor inhaunce any more
grievous than shall be reasonable according to their deserts
made, and not more nor less, nor for envy nor for love
assess or affier, but upon every one severally according
to the quantity of their offences made and not otherwise.
So help you God, &C."1
Smith evidently fulfilled his delicate task to the satis-
faction of the Court, as he acted again on several occasions,
and saved many of his friends from being too heavily fined.
In one case a neighbour built a wall for safety round a
pond on his property next to the road. He was summoned
for encroaching upon the road, and the Court proposed
a fine of £20. Smith, as affeeror, objected that this was
excessive, to which Grace, the steward, replied, " Nonsense,
who is to pay for all this ?" pointing to the spread upon
the table. The fine, however, was reduced to £10, as the
affeeror stuck to his guns. The offender in this case was
probably a flour-dealer, named Chesworth, of Bebington,
who, according to Mr. Thomas Field, built a house at
Windle Hill, and was fined for some such encroachment.
1 Kitchin's "Jurisdictions.
H
ii4 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
In spite of Smith's efforts, persons were fined practically
on no grounds, the sums obtained being often spent in
drink, and in entertaining any one in favour with the Court.
The members of the Court, with a packed jury consisting
of their friends, used to drive out from Birkenhead to
Hinderton in an omnibus. They were usually dressed in
shabby black tail or frock coats, and their appearance can
be imagined from the statement of a witness who told the
writer he could not in a week's time collect such a dis-
reputable-looking crew in all Liverpool.
One of the peculiar powers always incident to a Hun-
dred Court was the right of the steward, when in want
of jurors, to compel strangers riding or passing along the
highway to come in and be sworn. This dangerous privi-
lege was freely availed of by Moreton and Grace, and used
as an instrument for extorting fines. Merchants and
visitors on their way to and from town, and at the railway
stations, were accosted and summoned to sit as jurors at
the nearest public-house, in company with the riff-raff of
the neighbourhood. A refusal was met by a fine, which,
in default of payment, was exacted by means of seizure
and sale of the recalcitrant's property. As the real object
was not so much to obtain jurors as money, a second
summons to serve would be issued, and so on as long as
money in lieu of service was forthcoming. Dr. Redhead
relates that half the residents in Bebington and many else-
where, who were "worth a shot," had dealings more or
less unpleasant with the Court. One gentleman, Mr.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 115
Dobbin, was fined three times at ^"50 each for non-attend-
ance at Court, but in this case the greater part of the
penalty was remitted upon submission. Mr. Fisher,
another well-known resident, was summoned to attend,
and, upon the advice of his solicitor, did so. Again he
was impressed, and again he sat, so, as nothing could be
made out of him, he was suffered to dwell in peace.
The jurisdiction of the Court over highways and waste
lands was actively enforced, and numerous fines inflicted
for purprestures, i.e. encroachments. In one case a Wirral
landowner employed a large number of stonemasons to
erect a wall in a situation disapproved of by Moreton, who,
on the completion of the work, at once took the masons
into his service and paid them for pulling it down again !
The owner protested, and is said to have carried his griev-
ance into the law courts at Chester, but, in common with
many others who attacked the undoubted rights of the
Lord of the Hundred, lost his case, and had to pay the
costs.1
In one instance the powers of the Wapentake Court
were put to a good use. The Birkenhead and Chester
Railway bridge over Green Lane, Lower Tranmere, had
for some years been in a state of disrepair. It leaked
badly and the water remained undried under the arch-
ways. Appeals to the Railway Company and orders by
magistrates were unavailing, whereupon Grace, who re-
sided in Tranmere, took the matter up. A jury of the
1 Vide "A Free Village Library."
u6 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Wapentake Court viewed the bridge, and the repairs were
ordered to be done at once, under penalty of a fine of
,£100, and on pain, it is said, of seizure of the line and
arrest of the manager and directors for contempt in case
of non-compliance. One account states that, as the
Company were still contumacious, the bailiffs of the Court
seized a train about to start from Monks Ferry station !
This would be possible as there was no Act exempting
railway rolling stock from seizure in those days. Mr.
Thomas Field (now aged seventy-five), who was then
stationmaster at Hooton, informed the writer that he did
not think a train was stopped, as no doubt he would have
heard of it ; but he thinks some waggons may have been
seized. Notice was received by him from the manager
of the Railway Company to attend at Birkenhead Police
Court, to be sworn in as a special constable, a breach of
the peace being anticipated. He attended, and found that
all the other stationmasters on the line were also being
sworn in. Instructions were issued to them by the Com-
pany to resist any seizure, and in case of need to summon
a body of platelayers and porters to defend the Com-
pany's property. Mr. Field heard nothing more about
the matter ; and the Company eventually repaired the
bridge and removed the nuisance.
The Hooton stationmaster's first experience of the
Lord of the Hundred was of a different kind. Moreton,
who was unknown to him, one day got out of the train,
and found the platform door locked. His arrogance
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 117
brooked no opposition or delay, and he proceeded to
force the door open, and passed through to the omnibus
which then ran from Hooton to Neston. The station-
master came up and demanded who had broken open
the door, and upon a stranger, who was seated in the
bus, saying he had, seized him and knocked his head
against the side. A bystander warned Field it was the
dread Lord of the Wapentake, and that he would get
into trouble, but nothing came of the affair as Moreton,
though furious at the insult, doubtless saw he was in
the wrong.
A reeve or bailiff, and official Ale-Taster was ap-
pointed by Moreton in the person of his clerk, Whittaker
Edmondson. The duties of an Ale-Taster were to see
that good and wholesome beer and ale were brewed, to
taste them before sale, and to see that the price was
within the legal limits ; and to enforce the proper weight
of bread. For these purposes he had a roving commis-
sion throughout the Hundred, and in case of default it
was his duty to "present" the offender to the Court for
punishment.
Mr. Thomas Smith who, as we have seen, often was
present as affeeror, states that Edmondson was not at
all well received at Court by the steward unless he was
able to present some one from whom a fine could be
exacted for breach of duty. For this reason, and also
no doubt because of a natural thirst, the Ale-Taster was
very diligent in his duties, the performance of which
n8 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
seems to have necessitated a larger consumption of ale
than he was capable of managing. It used to be an
obligation on those who were entitled to enforce the
assize of bread and ale in this way to keep a pillory and
tumbril to punish faulty bakers and brewers. History
does not relate whether Moreton did so, but we may be
sure that if he had thought their provision would have
brought him any advantage he would have kept them.
Edmondson was probably one of the last Ale-Tasters
ever appointed, the Rossendale Ale-Taster, Taylor, being
perhaps the last in point of date.1
A description of the Court sitting at the Tranmere
Castle Hotel has been supplied by Mr. George Clark,
senior, and Mr. Thomas Garner, both ancient inhabitants
of Birkenhead, who have very distinct recollections of
the proceedings.2 The hotel was kept by a family named
Fernyhough, who were in close alliance with Moreton
and Grace ; and the sittings of the Court there contri-
buted largely to their takings. The Court sat in a
very large parlour with an oblong table down the middle,
and an elevated chair at one end for the judge or
steward. Here Moreton would sit with a clay pipe in
his mouth and a glass of drink beside him, and next to
him his steward. Down the table sat the jury, and
the rest of the space was occupied by onlookers, all of
whom were liberally supplied with drink, paid for out
1 See Notes and Queries (3rd Ser.), vi. 390; (yth Ser.), iv. 477.
2 Birkenhead News, Sept. i and 8, 1906.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 119
of the fines or exacted under the name of "costs." Mr.
Garner was present when his grandmother, Mrs. Ellen
Garner, the licensee of the "Black Horse," Higher Tran-
mere, was put upon her trial for damaging a fence. In
spite of the efforts of Grace, she defended herself with
such skill that a fine of one farthing only was inflicted,
but she was condemned to pay costs, which were taken
out in drinks all round to the assembled company.
In June 1855, when the Bills under which the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board acquired the Birkenhead docks
were before Parliament, we find Moreton advancing a new
claim. A local paper1 stated upon reliable authority
that a sudden and unexpected claimant to the foreshore
of the Cheshire side of the River Mersey and Dee and
comprising the whole of the Birkenhead docks, was about
to appear in the person of Samuel Holland Moreton,
Esq., Lord of the Hundred of Wirral, who based his
claim upon the Crown grant of 1820 (no doubt on the right
to "wreck") and intended to assert his claims previous
to the Dock Bills becoming law. The Bills eventually
passed without any clause saving the rights of, or giving
compensation to, Moreton, and therefore we can only sup-
pose that he was unable, as was likely from the form
of the grant, to substantiate his claim to the foreshore,
which in this case was of enormous value.
On September 3, 1855, one of the Wapentake
Courts (which were then held quarterly) took place at
1 Liverpool Chronicle, June 23, 1855.
120 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the Tranmere Hotel before Grace, the steward.1 There
were seventeen cases entered for trial by jury, and as
this was one of the last Hundred Courts ever held, it
is worth noting the nature of some of them.
An action for damages for false imprisonment was
brought by James M'Mahon of Liscard, schoolmaster,
against Elliott Hodson, a Birkenhead police detective.
Verdict for the defendant. An action by John Brown,
cooper, of Birkenhead, against Joseph Sill, a Bebington
farmer, was for £i, 195. nd. the price of a new churn.
(It will be observed that the claim was just under 405.
in accordance with the ancient limit of the Court's juris-
diction.) Another case was a claim for damages for
trespass by a squatter, who had enclosed some vacant
land at Tranmere, against the husband of a woman who
had trampled on the seeds sown there. Grace, as judge
and steward, held that the squatter, whether rightfully
in possession or not, could maintain an action, but the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Other cases
included a claim for the price of a dog, and an action
for damages against one of the staff of the highway
surveyor for injuries received by falling over a heap of
stones in Beech Road, Tranmere.
1 Liverpool Mercury, Sept. 4, 1855.
CHAPTER XI
THE LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND
MO R ETON (continued)
Embezzlement by Messrs. Brocklebank's cashier — His arrest — Injunction whilst
in prison — Conviction of Wilson — Seizure of his house at Clatterbridge —
Moreton obtains all Wilson's property — The Wirral Manor House — The
Court House — Sale of the Manor House — Moreton's dinners — The Liverpool
Chronicle — A bailiff killed — Mr. Christopher Bushell's horse — Abolition
of the Wapentake Court — County Courts Act, 1856 — Claims for compensa-
tion— Wreck — Board of Trade inquiry — Church of Holy Cross.
ONE of Moreton's most successful exploits is worth re-
cording in detail.1 In 1856 Messrs. Thomas & Ralph
Brocklebank were carrying on the business of merchants
and shipowners which still exists in Liverpool as T. & J.
Brocklebank. They had a cashier named Robert Wilson,
a confidential clerk, entrusted by them with large sums
**of money, who maintained a large private establishment
on the Cheshire side of the Mersey. In February 1856
Wilson absented himself from Messrs. Brocklebank's
counting-house, and it was then discovered that a con-
siderable quantity of money and securities had been
taken away by him. A reward of ^200 was offered for
his apprehension, and he was arrested in a few days in
1 Mrs. Gamlin's account of this incident is very incorrect. The details above
are taken from the Bills of Complaint in Brocklebank v. Wilson, and Moreton v.
Brocklebank (1856), and the local papers.
121
122 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Low Hill, Liverpool. Money and securities to the
amount of ^2900 were found upon him. He was
charged with embezzlement, and committed to the assizes
for trial. Besides the moneys he had carried off, Wilson
for several years had misappropriated sums amounting in
all to some ^"7000, with which, it was said, he had
purchased lands and house property. These included
twenty-nine acres of land and a partially built house at
Thornton Hough in Wirral (subsequently called the
Manor House or " Court House," Clatterbridge), held
on lease from the Earl of Shrewsbury, some house
property in Oxton, and in Wood Street, Birkenhead.
Whilst in prison, Wilson threatened to take steps to
dispose of these properties, and Messrs. Brocklebank
applied to the Master of the Rolls and obtained an
injunction restraining him from doing so. Wilson was
tried at the Liverpool spring assizes before Baron
Martin, and at first pleaded not guilty, but afterwards
withdrew this plea. Baron Martin, in sentencing him,
said that it was the very worst case of embezzlement
he had ever known, and he must inflict the severest
possible punishment, namely, transportation for fourteen
years. So far as can be ascertained what followed was
this. Moreton and Grace were quite alive to the
mediaeval right conferred by the Crown grant of 1820
on the Lord of the Hundred of Wirral to the goods
and chattels of a felon ; and so soon as Wilson was
convicted they hurried over the river to Thornton Hough
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 123
and took possession1 of Wilson's house. Wilson's wife
and family were summarily turned out (a witness is alive
who saw them deposited in the road), and the house
was occupied by Moreton.
At Messrs. Brocklebank's instance a receiver was
appointed of all Wilson's property, and took possession
of it, with the exception of the house at Clatterbridge,
of which he could not get possession owing to the
occupation of it by Moreton. He did not, however,
attempt to disturb Moreton, but at the same time would
not recognise his rights, and therefore, in 1859, Moreton
commenced proceedings in Chancery against Messrs.
Brocklebank, claiming that all Wilson's property vested
in him as the property of a felon, but that he could
not safely, or consistently with due respect for the Court,
disturb the possession of the receiver, notwithstanding
that it was founded on no rightful title. On the i2th
July, 1860, four years after the seizure, the Master of
the Rolls made a decree, declaring that, upon the convic-
tion of Wilson for felony, the astonishing result followed
that all his property vested in Moreton, except four
houses in Wood Street, Birkenhead, which, apparently,
Messrs. Brocklebank were able to earmark as having
been bought with their money. Messrs. Brocklebank
had to pay Moreton's costs.
1 Mrs. Gamlin (copying from the Mayer pamphlet) inaccurately states that Wilson
fled from justice, and that Grace took possession of the house as being the property
of an outlaw or fugitive from justice. It was as the property of a convicted felon
that it was seized.
i24 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Moreton allowed Mrs. Wilson to re-occupy the house
at Clatterbridge for a time, but subsequently Mrs.
Moreton, and occasionally he himself, lived there until
shortly before his death. He proceeded at once to erect
a Court-house on the property, and spent considerable
sums in completing it and also the house, which he
grandiloquently named "The Wirral Manor House."
The Court-house stands on the south side of the building,
and can be seen from the Clatterbridge Road. It is a
plainly built and lofty structure of red brick, some 75
feet long.1 The Court apparently sat on the first floor,
as there are no windows in the lower part of the
building, which is now used as a stable and barn. A
precipitous flight of stone steps leads up into a small
lobby on the first floor, from which doors open to the
right and left. The door to the right has a window in
the upper part and leads into a room where, no doubt,
the Court sat. This room is some 35 feet long, and 20
feet wide. It has three large windows on each side,
and a fireplace at the end, which has been bricked up.
The room to the left of the lobby was probably intended
as a waiting-room. It is divided from the Court by a
partition of panelled wood. This room, in addition to
four windows at the sides, has two at the east end,
which are partly filled with yellow glass. The inside walls
of the Court are of imitation stone, and the building
must have cost a considerable sum to erect. There
1 See frontispiece.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 125
seems to be no date or inscription on any part of the
building".
Moreton died in possession of the Manor House, and
some years afterwards (in May 1874), his representatives
sold it with the sanction of the Court of Chancery. The
conditions of sale referred to Wilson's conviction and
the seizure by Moreton "as representing through inter-
mediate assurances a grantee from the Crown of the
goods of felons within the district." The property was
purchased by one Alexander Kelly, and after passing
through various hands, is now owned by Joseph Hoult,
Esq., late M.P. for Wirral, whose residence is close by.
After this Court-house was built, the Wapentake was
once or twice held there by Grace, who, an eye-witness1
states, was often more or less intoxicated when presiding
as judge. His decisions in this state naturally gave great
dissatisfaction, and large crowds of incensed farmers and
villagers gathered outside the Court to discuss their
grievances, which were becoming a grave public scandal.
A feature of the Court were the dinners given by
Moreton when his affairs were flourishing. After the
proceedings of the day were over, he was in the habit of
summoning the jury and any other persons he happened
to see, to dine with him. It is said that he went so far
as fining for contempt of court those who declined to
attend. An excellent dinner with plenty of wine was
provided, but no drunkenness was allowed. Those who
1 Capt. Beckett, whose wife was a niece of Mrs. Moreton.
126 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
exceeded their capabilities were summoned the follow-
ing day, and if not fined, were bound over to observe
moderation at the next meeting, a promise which they
were unable to redeem, being never invited again.
It is said1 that David Ross, the editor of the Liverpool
Chronicle, was threatened with committal by Grace for
writing a leader on the vagaries of the Hundred Court,
and there are at any rate several references to it by that
paper in by no means complimentary terms. In April
1856, Greenaway Saunders, who was one of the bailiffs
of the Wapentake Court, went to serve a summons for
the sum of eightpence on Thomas Cross, a bootmaker in
Birkenhead. Cross for some reason objected, and struck
the bailiff over the head with a boot-tree, inflicting injuries
from which he subsequently died. In commenting upon
the case, the Chronicle* referred to the deceased as "an
officer of one of those sinks of abomination — a Wapentake
Court — nuisances which were rife a quarter of a century
ago." A sentence of nine months' imprisonment on
Cross was considered very severe by the townspeople of
Birkenhead, who had suffered a good deal from the
attentions of this bailiff. (Cross was, it may be re-
marked, a curious character. He obtained much notoriety
for selling his wife for 55. to go to America, and drew up
a formal agreement for her sale. He fell down dead
whilst engaged in a walking match to Chester.)3
1 By Mrs. Gamlin in " 'Twixt Mersey and Dee." 2 April 5, 1856.
3 Birkenhead News, Sept. 8, 1906.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 127
A further sarcastic reference to the Court appears in
May 1856, when the paper reports a rumour that the
Birkenhead bellman had got up a memorial applying- for
the situation of hangman to the Wirral Wapentake Court,
a reference, doubtless, to the pretensions of the lord
to authorities and jurisdictions which he did not possess.
There is no doubt that, in spite of the efforts of some
of the papers, many scandalous proceedings of the Court
were never reported. The Court was a movable one, and
could sit wherever the lord or his steward desired, so that
in case of necessity a jury would be hastily impanelled
by commandeering passers-by, and a travesty of justice
administered on the spot. The newspaper reporter not
being so ubiquitous as at the present day, the proceedings
would only become known by hearsay, and the fear of
contempt of court might very well prevent reference to
them.
Up to this time those who had attacked the Lord of the
Hundred had got the worst of it, but an incident occurred
about this period which eventually led to his downfall,
although at first he seemed to have had the better
of his antagonist. The late Mr. Christopher Bushell,
J.P., a Liverpool merchant, about the year 1855 bought
the Hinderton estate in Wirral, and erected the house
known as " Hinderton Hall," now the property of Sir
Percy E. Bates, Bart. Upon this estate there was a stone
quarry by a footpath which runs from Raby to Willaston
near the Water Tower. Exactly how Mr. Bushell incurred
128 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the displeasure of the Wapentake Court is not clear, but
he seems to have closed up the entrance to his quarry or
some road or footpath near it. Moreton objected to this
either as an interference with a right-of-way or a right of
taking stone from the quarry, and called upon Mr. Bushell
to open up the gate. He declined to recognise the
authority of the Court and was consequently summoned
to appear before it. As he did not do so, he was fined.
An application for payment met with no response, and
Moreton therefore resolved upon a fatal step. He sent
his bailiffs at night and seized out of a field a valuable
cart horse belonging to Mr. Bushell. A notice was left
behind on a post saying what had been done and the horse
was sold at Chester Fair and, it is said, bought back by
the owner. As it was feared further seizures would be
made Mr. Bushell armed his men with pitchforks and
bludgeons and set them to watch his stock at night, but
probably Moreton began to realise the calibre of his
antagonist as no more distresses were taken. According
to some accounts of the episode, costly and prolonged
litigation arose between Mr. Bushell and the Lord of the
Hundred, but no record of it has been found. It is clear,
however, that Mr. Bushell set himself to bring about the
downfall of the Court, as the high-handed nature of its
proceedings and abuse of power rendered its continuance
quite unbearable.
The end of the Wapentake drew near, and the agita-
tions of the aggrieved inhabitants of Wirral were at last
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 129
successful. Its demise was announced in the following
newspaper article : — l
4 'Our readers will remember the sensation which was
caused in Liverpool and Birkenhead a few months ago by
the reopening of one of those abominations, a Wapentake
Court, in the Hundred of Wirral, and the extraordinary
freaks under the name of justice which were perpetrated
on the other side of the water. Of course, it was not to
be endured in the middle of the nineteenth century that
these ludicrous follies should continue ; and accordingly
a clause was introduced into an Act during the present
session of Parliament which knocks this Wirral Wapentake
Court as completely on the head as if it never had an
existence, to the great delight of the Cheshire people, who
stood in daily terror of the tremendous and irresponsible
authority with which it was vested. The powers of this
Court, like many similar Courts in various parts of the
Kingdom, were supposed to fall into desuetude, because
opposed to the spirit of the age, until they were revived
in Cheshire by a purchase from the Lord of the Manor to
the astonishment of every one. But although the Court
and its officers, in its new form, can hardly be said to be
more than a year or so old, the Bill provides that these
worthies shall all have compensation given to them for the
losses they will sustain by the extinction of the Court.
By what legal machinery these losses are to be measured
we have no means of knowing ; but the cost will be paid
1 Liverpool Chronicle, July 26, 1856.
130 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
out of the general funds of the country, and not, as many
people have supposed, by a tax levied on the people of the
Hundred of Wirral. Perhaps it is fortunate, under the cir-
cumstances, that a Wapentake Court can be so quietly and
readily abolished ; but we hope that the Lords of Manors
elsewhere who have latent Wapentake Courts on their
estates will be a little more cautious how they dispose of
such enormous powers for a comparatively trifling" consider-
ation. They ought to have some mercy on the public."
The Act of Parliament referred to l came into operation
on the 29th July 1856. As originally introduced, the Bill
was simply one to amend the County Courts, which had
then been established some ten years. In committee, how-
ever, the influence of the representatives of the suffering
inhabitants of Wirral, probably headed by Mr. Christopher
Bushell, was sufficiently strong to get a clause inserted
which gave a deathblow to the Wirral Wapentake. Their
case must indeed have been a strong one, and it is worth
noting as further evidence, if need be, of the scandalous
misuse of this particular Court, that it was not until eleven
years later that the jurisdiction of the other surviving
Hundred Courts was curtailed.2
Section 77 of the Act of 1856 provided that "from and
1 County Courts Acts Amendment Act, 1856.
1 By the County Courts Act of 1867. The Hundred Courts of Offlow (Staffs.) and
Hemlingford (Warwicks.) had been abolished in 1852 by similar provisions in the
County Court Act of that year. An account of the latter Court is given in " The
Hundreds of Warwickshire," by B. Walker, A. R.I. B. A., vol. xxxi., Trans, of Birming-
ham Archaeological Society.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 131
after the passing of this Act no action or suit shall be
commenced in the Hundred or Wapentake Court of Wirral,
in the county of Chester, and the authority and jurisdiction
of the said Court shall cease." All pending actions and
suits were transferred to the County Court. Every person
who was legally entitled to any franchise or office in the
Court was to be entitled to make a claim for compensa-
tion on the Treasury within six months after the passing
of the Act, and the Commissioners were to inquire what
was the nature of the office, and what were its fees and
emoluments, and to award such gross or yearly sum as
they thought fit for loss of office.
In due course claims for compensation were lodged
with the Treasury by Moreton as lord, by Grace as
steward, and by Whittaker Edmondson as reeve and
bailiff. Accounts were submitted by the steward for
the seven quarters from October 1854 to the end of
July 1856, which showed the gross receipts of the Court
for that period to have been ^360, 6s. 6d., i.e. about
^200 a year, which is a surprisingly small figure con-
sidering the largeness of some of the fines said to have
been inflicted. The majority, however, of them did not
exceed a few shillings, and, as already shown, some of
them did not always come into the hands of the Court
in the shape of cash. But doubtless the figures supplied
to the Treasury were as high as could be given. They
dispose of the current idea that Moreton and Grace made
a considerable fortune out of the Court.
132 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Edmondson, the reeve, stated that his fees for the
same period amounted to ^44, 2S.
The following sums were awarded as compensation : — l
To Moreton . . . . . £250
To Grace ..... 300
To Edmondson .... 60
The Hundred Court was now gone, but there still
remained vested in Moreton, for what they were worth,
the quasi-manorial and other rights conferred by the
Crown grant of 1820. These were quite unaffected by
the Act of 1856, which did not purport to revoke the
grant. Moreton still continued to describe himself as
"Lord of the Hundred of Wirral." Grace also appears
in 1857 i° the Law List and directories as " Steward
of Wirral," and from 1858 to 1860 as "High Steward
of Wirral Hundred." Whether there was any substantial
value in what was left to them is more than doubtful,
but efforts were occasionally made to keep the rights
alive. On one occasion a diamond ring was found on
the beach on the Dee side of Wirral. Moreton promptly
claimed it, presumably as wreck as it would not consti-
tute "treasure trove," and succeeded in establishing his
claim, or at any rate defeating that of any one else.2
Very early in his career Moreton had advanced his
claim to "wreck," and sent notice of it to the Lord of
the Manor of Eastham and Hooton, and probably to
1 Information of the Treasury. 2 Information of Captain Beckett.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 133
others, threatening to take action if they laid hands on
any wreck thrown up within the limits of their manors.
It seems very likely that his claim was disputed by
them, and it will be remembered that " wreck" had
never formed part of the rights of the Crown lessees of
the Hundred, but had somehow slipped into the deed of
1820 to John Williams on the occasion of his purchase.
The right to it might have been tested in the case of a
schooner which had been in collision in the Mersey,
and, after being abandoned, had grounded on Tranmere
beach. Moreton claimed the ship, but when he found
there was no cargo, the vessel being in ballast and
badly damaged, he did not pursue the matter further.
In 1857 an inquiry was held at Liverpool by James
O'Dowd, solicitor to her Majesty's Customs, into the
claims of Lords of the Manor and others to "unclaimed
wreck" under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. This
Act contained new provisions regulating the seizure and
sale of unclaimed wreck on the coasts, and provided
for notice being given to the Receiver of Wreck by any
Lord of the Manor or other person who set up a claim
to it. The inquiry was held for the purpose of adjudi-
cating upon the claims which had been received in
respect of the coasts of the Mersey and Dee. It lasted
for several weeks and much interesting information was
given as to the manorial titles in the district.1 Among the
claims put forward was that of Mr. J. Baskervyle Glegg
1 Liverpool Daily Post, May 25, 1857, and Liverpool Courier, May 27, 1857.
134 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
of Gayton in respect of the Hundred of Caldy,1 and
documentary evidence was put forward, showing un-
interrupted enjoyment there of the right to wreck from
early times down to the date of the inquiry. Moreton,
however, put in a claim (based upon the Crown grant
of 1820) to all unclaimed wreck found on the shores of
the Hundred of Wirral and throughout the extent of
the maritime limits of that Hundred. He was repre-
sented at the inquiry by Grace, who produced the Crown
grant of 1820, and the deeds subsequent thereto by
which the Hundred devolved upon Moreton.
When dealing with Moreton's claim, Mr. O'Dowd
expressed considerable surprise at what he termed his
very startling and extensive pretensions, more especially
seeing that the amount of the purchase money paid
by John Williams (whose interest Moreton represented)
amounted only to the small sum of ,£230, and that
Moreton had himself purchased the whole of the rights
for the still smaller sum of .£99, 195. Mr. O'Dowd
pointed out that the Hundred of Wirral by the latest
surveys comprised upwards of 60,000 acres of land, in
ancient times comparatively valueless, but then of a
value impossible to be appreciated, over all of which
Moreton claimed lordship. The commissioner said that
Moreton based his claim on the very comprehensive lan-
guage of the grant, but although this gave Williams
1 This Hundred within a Hundred had its own Court, and must not be con-
fused with the Manor of Caldy, which was quite distinct.
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 135
all that was meant by "the Hundred of Wirral," there
were qualifying and restrictive words in the deed which
indicated (to Mr. O'Dowd) that but a small portion of
the Hundred was intended to pass to the purchaser.
The words referred to were : "Which said Hundred and
premises are portions of the possessions of the Land
Revenues of the Crown . . . and were last demised . . .
by letters patent . . . bearing date the 8th day of April
1786 to John Glegg of Neston . . . for a reversionary
term of 27 years." Mr. O'Dowd complained that the
lease to Glegg had not been produced, nor had Moreton
been able to satisfy him what were the particulars and
conditions of the sales of Crown lands at the time
of Williams' purchase. Under the circumstances Mr.
O'Dowd intimated that before reporting to the Board
of Trade he would have to obtain information from the
Office of Woods and Forests as to the terms of the
lease and also the precise lot of which Williams became
the purchaser. On another part of the case Mr. O'Dowd
felt considerable difficulty. On reference to the Act of
George III. it appeared that the power to sell Crown
lands, hereditaments, and revenues, although embracing
several royalties, did not specify "wreck." Mr. O'Dowd
could not agree that a power to sell "hereditaments"
was sufficiently comprehensive to include "wreck," be-
cause, in his view, the Crown was entitled to wreck
by force of its prerogative and not in the way of
inheritance. Whilst feeling doubts and difficulties as to
136 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the excessive exercise by the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests of the powers of the Act, Mr. O'Dowd
intimated that he could not think of reporting against
a claim which rested upon a sale made by the Com-
missioners without further inquiries. He decided there-
fore to make a special report to the Board of Trade
and obtain their decision whether, having regard to
the wording of the statute, the terms of the Crown
grant, and an alleged acquiescence of the Crown in the
exercise of Moreton's rights, his claim to wreck might
not be admitted in respect, not of the Hundred of Wirral,
but of the particular part of it of which he was the bond
fide and absolute owner under the deed of 1820.
This decision, if it may be so called, does not seem to
be very satisfactory or very clear, and shows the commis-
sioner did not appreciate what the franchise of a Hundred
was. He seems to have thought that a grant of the
Hundred of Wirral could not possibly include rights over
the whole land of Wirral ; but there is no doubt that it
did, though, as we have seen, it did not carry the owner-
ship of the soil. As we know, the Crown lessees did not
possess the right to wreck, but if they had, it seems clear
that they, and all subsequent owners of the Hundred,
would have been entitled to wreck throughout the whole
coasts of Wirral.
Mr. O'Dowd's report to the Board of Trade was con-
fidential, but he would no doubt ascertain from the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests that the Crown lessees
LORDSHIP OF SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON 137
never had the right to wreck. The result of his own
inquiry proved that the right to unclaimed wrecks on the
coasts of Wirral was held by various persons, who all
showed a lengthy manorial title. This of itself would be
almost sufficient to prove that at the time of the Crown
grant of 1820 the right to wreck was not in the Crown,
and that in selling it they were disposing of something
they had not got. Presumably Mr. O'Dowd reported
against Moreton's claim ; at any rate the Board of Trade
refused to admit it, and his name does not appear in the
records of the Receiver of Wreck at Liverpool or Chester
amongst the list of Lords of Manors entitled to unclaimed
wreck.1
After this date to his death, the only feature in More-
ton's career worth noting is that he was persuaded to
interest himself in church matters, and eventually contri-
buted some ^2000 towards the erection, about 1860, of
the Church of the Holy Cross in Great Crosshall Street,
Liverpool, the architect being the younger Pugin.
1 The names and districts of those whose claims were subsequently admitted
are : — Richard Erring-ton : Ness, and Puddington (from Burton to Little Neston and
from Shotwick to Burton) ; W. W. Congreve : Burton (between Ness and Pudding-
ton) ; James Houghton : Great Neston (Little Neston to Leighton) ; John Baskervyle
Glegg (in respect of the Hundred of Caldy) : from Leighton-on-Dee to Seacombe
(except the Manors of Caldy, Wallasey, and Liscard) ; Richard Barton : the Manor
of Caldy (from the south boundary of West Kirby to the north boundary of Thurs-
taston) ; the devisees of Richard Smith : Poulton-cum-Seacombe (from Birkenhead
Dock on the south to Egremont Ferry on the north) ; Major Orred : the Manor of
Tranmere (from Birkenhead to Rock Ferry) ; C. K. Mainwaring : the Manor of Brom-
borough ; R. C. Naylor : the Manor of Hooton and Eastham (from Bromborough
Pool to Poole) ; Marquis of Westminster : the Manor of Whitby and Overpool.
" Custom House Records" at Liverpool, Chester, and Connah's Quay. 1860 & 1861.
CHAPTER XII
THE MORETON WILL CASE
Death of Moreton — Newspaper articles — The making of his will — Bequest to
Roman Catholic Bishop of Liverpool of all his property — Validity questioned
by widow — Dr. Goss and the Hundred of Wirral — Widow lodges a caveat
— Notice to tenants — Pressure on widow to compromise — Moreton's ghost —
Withdrawal of widow's opposition — Supposed heir-at-law intervenes — Trial —
Will set aside — Death of Dr. Goss — Litigation among rival claimants — James
Moreton, heir-at-law — Sale of Hundred of Wirral to Leather— Moreton gets it
back — His death.
MORETON died on March 24, 1869, at his house in William
Brown Street, Liverpool, aged seventy-five, and was buried
in the Catholic Chapel at Neston. The circumstances of
his death and the making of his will were very extraordi-
nary, and no account of the Lordship of Wirral would be
complete without full reference to them, as the destination
of the rights of the lord was now for several years in dis-
pute. A local paper was at this time devoting much
attention to the growing influence of Roman Catholicism,
and a series of able and at times amusing articles at
once appeared dealing with the Moreton will case. The
first1 bore the sensational title " Priestly Will-making
in Liverpool; Bishop Goss Heir to ,£30,000," and
proceeded as follows : —
"The power which the Church of Rome exercises, by
1 Liverpool Courier, April 9, 1869.
138
THE MORETON WILL CASE 139
frequently wringing from her members, while on their
deathbeds, immense bestowals of conscience money, is
still notorious. We have had the practice exemplified of
late years in numerous cases from the sister island, where,
if Protestant ascendency has hitherto been official, Romish
ascendency has been more actual. But we may be per-
mitted to doubt whether any of those multiplied instances
exceed in flagrancy a case of the kind which has just tran-
spired in Liverpool. The most extraordinary rumours
have been prevalent in the neighbourhood of Islington-
flags as to the circumstances under which the late Mr.
Samuel Holland Moreton, solicitor, of this town, died and
made a will — or, rather, as rumour puts it, had a will made
for him, — in which the whole of his extensive property
goes to the Church of Rome, in the person of her chief
representative here, the Right Rev. Dr. Goss, the titular
Bishop of Liverpool. The late Mr. Moreton ... in the
course of his professional practice, acquired, in some
occult manner, the Lordship of the manor in the Hundred
of Wirral, and the rights of court-leet and wapentake con-
nected with it. It has been stated that the person from
whom he obtained the Lordship had succeeded to it by
descent, but, having fallen into bad circumstances, and
being unaware, through desuetude, of the privileges and
emoluments still appertaining to the Lordship, he was
induced to convey it to Mr. Moreton, though the 'con-
sideration ' has never transpired, and it has been said that
the smallest coin in the realm will probably represent
i4o THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
it.1 The original Lord, at any rate, benefited very little
by the transaction, for he is, or was comparatively lately,
working as a lumper at the Liverpool Docks.2 When Mr.
Moreton had got the Lordship fully transferred to him, he
resuscitated it with a vigour which astonished the public,
who were under the impression that it had been done away
with, or was at the most an utterly effete institution. The
ancient glories of the wapentake were sought to be revived
in a curious fashion. Reeves or bailiffs were appointed,
* ale-tasters ' were sworn in, and juries empanelled to
attend the court-leet and view of frank pledge. The
sittings were usually held at the Tranmere Castle Hotel,
where small debts of the most trumpery character were
tried in a fashion that rendered the tribunal a complete
farce, though it was no joke for any unfortunate suitor
who happened to be cast in damages, for the court, it
turned out, had real functions, and amerced sundry
persons in very grievous pains and penalties. The Lord
of the Wapentake took cognisance of other and more
serious matters than small debts. He dealt with sundry
owners of property in a very high-handed fashion, and
there was a famous collision with Mr. Christopher Bushell,
of Neston, . . . which eventually resulted in the abolition,
by Act of Parliament, of the Wirral Wapentake, though
many of the rights of Lordship remained untouched. . . .
The most audacious thing ever done in connection with
1 It was stated in the deed to have been .£99, 193., as we have seen, page 107, ante.
* No doubt this refers to Spencer.
THE MORETON WILL CASE 141
the Lordship, however, was the seizure of the property,
which, of late years, constituted the manor-house, at the
village of Thornton Hough, half-way between Lower
Bebington and Neston. . . . Everything thus obtained
was kept, and is part of the ' prize ' which has fallen to
the Church of Rome, or perhaps it would be more correct
to say, has been snatched from a deathbed by some of her
zealous ecclesiastics. Mr. Moreton being of very saving
habits acquired a great deal of other property in various
modes, and at the time of his decease owned property in
Brunswick Road, Liverpool — as to the sanitary condition
of which he was in frequent litigation with the Health
Committee — worth ^600 or ^700 a year ; property in
Warwick Street, Liverpool ; and a warehouse, cottages,
brewhouse, public-house, and other tenements in Mill Lane
and at the back of Islington-flags. Attached to his pro-
perty he built premises which faced William Brown Street,
immediately above the waste ground on the east side of
the Free Library, and sought in vain to obtain a spirit
licence from the borough magistrates. Failing in this,
he opened it under a beer and wine licence, and generally
lived there during the week, going home to the manor-
house at Thornton Hough on Saturday afternoon, to
remain until Monday, The Islington property being re-
quired by the Corporation for street improvements, Mr.
Moreton made what was considered a very enormous de-
mand for compensation for giving it up. The matter went
to arbitration some months ago, and an award was made
i42 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
fixing the value at ^3300, which so utterly failed to
meet Mr. Moreton's great expectations, that he used to
threaten, in his foolish, eccentric sort of way, — which
really meant nothing except great anger — that he would
shoot the Town Clerk, Mr. Joseph Rayner, for the share
he believed him to have had in defeating his exorbitant
claim.
"We now come to the period immediately preceding
Mr. Moreton's death, when circumstances are said to
have occurred, which, if they are at all borne out by the
facts, are simply scandalous. At the same time we must
warn our readers that, from the very peculiar nature of
the whole transaction, it is exceeding hard to get at the
exact circumstances, and it is therefore very possible that
when the matter comes to be sifted in a court of law — if
it should ever reach that stage, as to which considerable
doubt may be entertained — many of the present allegations
will have to be considerably modified. These allegations,
put into definite shape from the various rumours afloat,
make up a story which is to the following effect.
"For about two months prior to his decease, Mr.
Moreton had been suffering from bronchitis, and was
usually attended by Dr. Stopford Taylor of Springfield.
On the evening of Monday the 22nd of March, he was
apparently rather better, and in accordance with a favourite
habit, he had one or two friends and neighbours with him
at the house in Islington, enjoying some games at whist.
The old gentleman displayed considerable mental and
THE MORETON WILL CASE 143
bodily weakness as the evening progressed, and after his
friends left he became, during the night, much worse.
There were besides himself two women servants in the
house, Mrs. Moreton being at that time also unwell at
the manor-house at Thornton Hough. Next morning,
Tuesday, the 23rd, his medical attendant was sent for,
and he arrived at the house at about half-past ten o'clock.
Mr. Moreton then appeared to be insensible. The medical
man was seen to shake him and call him, but he remained
perfectly undemonstrative under this active treatment.
It would appear that his disease had made such progress
that, owing to its peculiar action on the blood and the
brain, he must have been partially asphyxiated and quite
incapable of exercising the ordinary functions of the brain.
After the medical man left, the Very Rev. Canon Fisher,
a well-known Roman Catholic dignitary, with whom
Mr. Moreton had been in frequent communication, was
sent for. Upon his arrival he found the old man in
extremis. Leaving him, the canon went to the office of a
local solicitor, and taking from there a boy or young man,
returned to the residence of Mr. Moreton. Taking this
youth and one of the servant girls into the bedroom, the
rev. gentleman produced a form of will already drawn
out, raised Mr. Moreton up in the bed, put on his
spectacles, placed a pen in his hand, and, without reading
the will over to him, got hold of his hand and guided
the fingers of the dying and insensible man to form his
signature at the foot of the will, which was completed by
I44 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the solicitor's clerk and the servant girl being constituted
witnesses of the assisted signature.1 By this will the
whole of Mr. Moreton's property — some of which he had
obtained through his marriage and the total value of
which is said to be little short of ,£25,000 or ,£30,000 — is
bequeathed to the Right Rev. Alexander Goss, Bishop of
Liverpool, for the benefit of religion as taught by the
Roman Catholic Church. Not a penny's worth was left
to Mrs. Moreton, not a penny's worth to any of the
nephews and nieces of her husband or herself — there are
no children. This pious work accomplished, another
pious work followed, and extreme unction was ad-
ministered to the penitent. Being now cared for, body
and soul, his ecclesiastical friends had no further need for
him. The medical man saw him again about nine o'clock
that night in the presence of other persons, and the same
treatment as that pursued in the morning was repeated,
this time it would appear with a little better success.
After being shaken and shouted to, the poor old fragment
of mortality muttered something about being better, but
nothing more could be got from him ; he relapsed into
unconsciousness, and towards morning of the 24th he
died, his death being duly chronicled in the obituary
of a contemporary on the 25th of March. In due time
the widow came to make inquiry into the disposition of
his property ; and then she learnt how utterly bereft she
1 There was in fact no solicitor's clerk present, the attesting witnesses being
Canon Fisher and the servant girl.
THE MORETON WILL CASE 145
was by that final event which had taken place in her
absence. Notice has since been sent to the officials of
the Corporation on behalf of Bishop Goss that he is sole
legatee, and in that capacity will be prepared to transfer
the property in Islington to the Corporation on payment
of the award of ^3300. The widow, it is said, has
placed her affairs in the hands of Dr. Commins, a well-
known and able barrister of this town, and it is under-
stood that she demands a settlement of ^500 or ^600 a
year for her life, threatening, unless this be conceded, to
contest the validity of the will. No doubt with that
worldly wisdom which generally distinguishes Roman
Catholic policy, some quiet arrangement will be made,
and the affair, if possible, hushed up ; for Bishop Goss
would make a very awkward appearance in a court of law
as defendant in such a claim, even supposing there was
a chance of his establishing the validity of a will executed
by an incompetent testator.
" Having given one side of this singular story, it is only
right to add that there are said to be what may be termed
mitigating circumstances. The father of Mr. Samuel
Holland Moreton was a nominal Protestant, his mother
a zealous Roman Catholic. He himself professed to be
a member of the same Church, though he had not given
much attention to its services or ministrations. In fact,
he could hardly be called a pious son of the Church, for
true piety would not resort to such a complete abnegation
of natural ties and the just claims of kindred, even for
146 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
the benefit of 'religion.' But the disposition of his pro-
perty, however improperly or suspiciously brought about,
may have been consistent with his intentions. It is said
that he was frequently urged, in the interests of his wife,
to make a settlement of his affairs, but he always put the
matter off, though he frequently observed in conversation
with his friends that he would leave the bulk of the
property to ' the Church ' — meaning the Roman Catholic
Church — and would provide his widow with ^400 or
,£500 a year. In case Bishop Goss succeeds in sustaining
his heirship to the property, and to the Lordship of the
Hundred of Wirral, the question arises, ' What will he
do with it?' The days of clerical judgeships in Eng-
land are, we presume, past ; otherwise, should Dr. Goss
be entitled to exercise the unfamiliar but presumably
tremendous powers of his Lordship, we might anticipate
that one of the first and most welcome of his judicial acts
would be to harry and oppress arch-heretics like ourselves
— should we ever come within his clutches — for the un-
pardonable sin of showing the public how ' the Church
of Rome still endeavours to enrich herself out of death-
bed penitents.' '
The widow at once took the preliminary steps to con-
test this extraordinary will by lodging a " caveat" in the
Probate Court. Meanwhile, however, the clerical execu-
tor took possession of Moreton's estate and issued the
following notice to the tenants : — *
1 Birkenhead Advertiser, Mays, 1869.
THE MORETON WILL CASE 147
"I hereby authorise and request you to pay the rent
now due and hereafter to become due from you in respect
of the premises in your occupation to Charles Strawsen as
my agent : and I undertake to refund the same to you in
the event of the will of Mr. Moreton being declared
invalid.
"(sd) ALEXANDER Goss, D.D.,
" Executor to the late Samuel Holland Moreton."
Suggestions of a compromise between the widow and
the bishop, by the latter allowing her a comfortable pro-
vision for life on her opposition to the will being with-
drawn, produced a hostile article in a local newspaper
in these terms : — 1
11 No doubt the bishop would be glad to come to some
such arrangement of an awkward business, and we may
well believe that he would be ready to avail himself of
any friendly persuasion which would be likely to have
the desired effect upon the widow. But there is a story
current as to the kind of influence which is being brought
to bear in the matter which is so ludicrous that we only
give it in order to show what singular lengths some people
will go in superstitious belief. ... It appears that
Mrs. Moreton, pending law proceedings, still resides at
the Manor House. . . . She is accompanied by two
women servants, devout Roman Catholics, one of whom
used to be servant to the Rev. Father Fleetwood, who
was the Roman Catholic chaplain to the Liverpool Work-
1 Liverpool Courier, June 16, 1869.
148 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
house and died of fever in the discharge of his duties.
One of these women is, it appears, a see-er of visions and
a dreamer of dreams, and the story goes that she has on
several occasions recently seen the ghost of the deceased
Mr. Moreton walk up and down the house and evidently
* onaisy in his mind,' like the pig that sees the wind in
the song of 'The Whistling Thief.' One day last week
at the early hour of six A.M. . . . she came upon the
spectre of the departed Lord of the Wirral Wapentake
standing under a favourite apple tree in the orchard and
wiping his forehead in an agony of perspiration — the infer-
ence being that his spirit was troubled about the proceed-
ings of his relict in the matter of his disputed will. The
woman was so frightened that she ran off and told the
village constable. Whether the rural police have succeeded
in effectually laying the ghost we have not heard, but we
should strongly advise them not to interfere, because there
are delicate questions of purgatory which might get sadly
mixed up if their interference proved successful. The
whole story has created an immense sensation amongst the
Cheshire rustics, some of whom shrewdly shake their heads
and say that the whole thing is intended to frighten Mrs.
Moreton into compliance with the wishes of the dignitaries
of the Church to which her deceased husband belonged."
The proceedings soon reached another development,
related as follows : —
" When we last noticed the affair, very great pressure of
THE MORETON WILL CASE 149
a peculiar kind was being brought to bear upon the widow
with the view of inducing her to give up her opposition to
the righteous document which has left her penniless in
old age, after acting the part of a faithful wife to her
husband during the long period they were united. The
course adopted was quite in accordance with the principle
of spiritual terrorism which is part of the ecclesiastical
system of the Church of Rome, and that the superstitious
— probably its devotees would say the miraculous — char-
acter of the priestly influence might be duly sustained, a
ghost is still being utilised, we are given to understand,
with considerable success. Mrs. Moreton, in fact, is
surrounded by creatures whose office is to secure that the
golden prize of her late husband's wealth shall not elude
the Church's grasp. Her nurses or attendants are
obedient daughters of Romanism, and one of them is
gifted with a special power — she can see visions, and
doubtless dream dreams. This is the person who has on
several occasions encountered the spirit of the deceased
Mr. Moreton wandering about the orchard of the Manor
House at untimely hours of the morning — untimely that
is, as far as ghosts are concerned, for one A.M. is the
generally prescribed time — and this dilatory spirit (Mr.
Moreton, we believe, was generally a late getter up) is
always five or six hours behindhand. The ghost is usually
in an unhappy frame of mind — on one occasion the spec-
tator saw it wipe an agony of perspiration from its brow
on a silk pocket-handkerchief ; and this, by the way,
150 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
is the first well-authenticated instance of a disembodied
spirit carrying such a useful article. The ghost of
Hamlet's father, with which we have hitherto been best
acquainted, is distinguished by a helmet, a plume, a deep
bass voice, and a painful habit of saying ' Swear ' ; but
Mr. Moreton's ghost, with whom in time the public may
hope to become on intimate terms, will henceforth be
distinguished by its silk pocket-handkerchief. How it
has come to escape from the limbo of purgatory we are
not authentically informed, and as this is very delicate
ground we forbear to inquire further. But the inference
is clear, that the ghost has something on its mind ; and as
the deceased purchased everlasting peace by making Dr.
Goss his heir, the conclusion is natural, that the discom-
fort arises from the results of the heirship being hitherto
interfered with by the widow's contumacy in disputing
the will. When the ghost was visible on the occasion
more particularly referred to, the sympathetic sightseer
rushed to seek the aid of the village constable ; but the
rural police having failed, as we felt convinced they
would fail, in putting down the ghost, the servant woman
next resorted to the parish priest at Neston, a mile
or two off. This pious and venerable gentleman, it is
understood, was much shocked upon the first disclosure
of the widow's disinheritance in favour of Dr. Goss,
and very freely expressed his opinion that Mrs. Moreton
had been hardly used in the matter. But time works
wonders, even in the conviction of a well-seasoned Roman
THE MORETON WILL CASE 151
Catholic priest, and a singular change of policy on the
part of the reverend gentleman has led to the latest
development in this celebrated will-making case. It is
stated that at several interviews with Mrs. Moreton lately,
sought by the lady with the view of arranging for the
saying of masses for the soul of the dead, the Neston
priest has played the part of a Job's comforter ; that he
has pointed out that her husband was — well, not a first-
class saint, though perhaps a very clever lawyer, and
that his property having been acquired by crooked ways,
he can never by any possibility get through purgatory
and present himself, duly whitewashed, before St. Peter,
unless atonement is made by devoting the property to
holy uses — in other words, letting 'the Church,' in the
person of Dr. Goss, take all. At the same time he
assured her that the Church authorities were not un-
mindful of her claims, and he read to her two letters
purporting to come from Dr. Goss, or to be written with
his authority, offering to provide her with £200 a year
during the rest of her life, to leave her in undisturbed
possession of the Manor House at Thornton Hough,
and of the furniture there and at the house in William
Brown Street, Liverpool, where Mr. Moreton died, be-
sides paying the ground rent, about ^50 a year, for
the house and land at Thornton Hough. What other
arguments in the way of applying what may be termed
the power of the spiritual screw were used, or what
threats of anathema maranatha at the latter end were
152 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
held out, is not stated, but a devout daughter of the
Church, verging on threescore and ten, and almost
entirely dependent on the Church's 'generosity' in life
as well as in death, would be almost more than mortal
to resist the influences which can be brought to bear
on such an occasion, and we are not surprised at the
result. The letters were not entrusted to the widow,
not even copies allowed, so wily are these priestly will-
managers, as in that case the friends of Mrs. Moreton
would have something tangible to lay hold of, but a
paper in legal form was put before the old lady, and
she was induced to sign it. Whether she knew its full
import or not may be surmised ; but in fact it was this —
a notice to her solicitor, who had hitherto acted in her
behalf, to stay proceedings and withdraw the caveat
against the will. The lawyer, we believe, is not inclined
to let his client's interest be sacrificed, and he declines
to stay proceedings until some legal guarantee is given
by Bishop Goss for the payment of a due provision to
the widow, in case the caveat is withdrawn. Most prob-
ably some such guarantee will be given and accepted.
A single member of the Church placed in the peculiar
position of Mrs. Moreton can hardly be expected to
fight, single-handed, successfully, the whole spiritual
power of the Church, and so far as Mrs. Moreton and
Dr. Goss are concerned the affair is likely to end in
such a compromise as we have indicated. What the
Government may do in the matter, or whether the law
THE MORETON WILL CASE 153
officers of the Crown may feel inclined to withdraw the
claim they have set up, is another thing." l
Following upon this an official statement was pub-
lished 2 that the widow had withdrawn her opposition to
the will for ^"200 per annum and the use of the Wirral
Manor House rent free for life, this arrangement being con-
tingent upon the bishop being able to prove the will. In
announcing this settlement it was remarked "there the
matter stands at present, unless the heir-at-law, who is sup-
posed to be in Australia, turns up and sets aside the will."
This was the only cloud to mar the felicity of the settle-
ment from the bishop's point of view, and unfortunately it
burst over his head. Grace, whose claims to recognition
in Moreton's will were ignored, had felt aggrieved and set
about to discover an heir-at-law. Some one in America
named Hill (apparently no relation at all !) was unearthed,
and intervened just in time to prevent the will being proved
without opposition. Another complication had also been
introduced by the intervention of the Crown, in the name
of the Duchy of Lancaster, claiming the freehold and part
of the personal estate of the deceased as an intestate and
without kin.
In the meantime the tenants on the estate did not know
which way to turn. Notices and counter notices were
served by the bishop, the widow, and the so-called heir,
1 Liverpool Courier, July 3. 1869.
2 Liverpool Courier, July 9, 1869.
154 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
each claiming payment of the rents. A complete stranger
named Bell also joined in and demanded the rents ; and
when the tenants, not unnaturally under the circumstances,
declined to pay any one, he levied a distress and removed
furniture, to which he had no shadow of title, to a ware-
house. The sequel was a summons in the law courts and
an order upon the unfortunate warehouseman to give up
the goods at once and pay the costs.1
The Moreton will case, which by this time was a cause
cefebre, came before Lord Penzance in June 1870. It
lasted the better part of six days.2 An array of distin-
guished counsel was engaged. Sir John Karslake and
11 Mr." Charles Russell appeared for the bishop ; the Soli-
citor-General (Sir John D. Coleridge), Mr. West, Q.C.,
and Mr. Inderwick for the Duchy ; and Dr. Deane,
Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the heir-at-law.
Much hard swearing occurred, but the facts turned
out to be practically identical with those related in
the newspaper article already quoted.
Canon Fisher, D. D., gave evidence that he prepared the
will on Moreton's instructions, using a copy of "Jarman
on Wills," which apparently formed part of his theological
library ; that he suggested the employment of a solicitor,
but Moreton declined to have anything more to do with
lawyers, saying they were "the scrapings of hell." He
denied that Moreton was moribund at the time, or that he
1 Liverpool Courier, Dec. 30, 1869.
* Fully reported in the Liverpool Courier of 4th, 6th, i6th, lyth, i8th, and
22nd June 1870.
THE MORETON WILL CASE 155
held the deceased's hand. The other attesting witness,
Ellen Chatterton, a servant, denied that she had told
several people that Canon Fisher guided Moreton's hand,
and now asserted that the deceased fully understood what
he was doing. Severe comments were made by counsel
and the Judge upon the fact, stated by Canon Fisher, that
it was understood between him and the dying man that,
although the widow was not to be mentioned in the will,
the bishop was to allow her ^200 a year, whereas in fact
he did not agree to do so until she disputed the will and
became a dangerous opponent.
It was proved that the signature to the will was totally
unlike that of the dead man, and that though a lawyer he
had signed in the wrong place. This, coupled with the
contradictions of the witnesses and the evidence of Dr.
Stopford Taylor, the deceased's medical attendant, was so
conclusive that Lord Penzance had no hesitation in saying
that Moreton at the time was incapable of making a will,
and that the one set up was invalid.
Great but unsuccessful efforts 1 were made to free Dr.
Goss from paying the enormous costs of the litigation,
upon the grounds that he was abroad at the time the will
was made and took no real part in the matter. He died
suddenly in October 1872, and there is reason to suppose
his death was accelerated by the odium which he had to
suffer through his connection with the case, although there
is no evidence that he was in any way a party to Canon
1 Goss v. Hill and others, 40 L. J. P. 39 ; 25 L. T. 133.
156 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
Fisher's proceedings.1 Mrs. Moreton was left practically
penniless, as of course the annuity promised by the bishop
if successful never became payable.
Upon the declaration of intestacy prolonged litigation
at once ensued between many rival claimants to Moreton's
property, which was variously estimated but seems origin-
ally to have been worth some ^20,000. It consisted of
freehold and leasehold estates which, according to the law
of intestacy, went to the heir-at-law and the next-of-kin
respectively. As regards the leasehold property, our only
interest is in the Manor House, the sale of which, in 1874,
has been already mentioned. The widow was appointed
administratrix in 1871, but died in February 1873 ; and after
further legal proceedings administration of the personal
estate of Moreton was granted to Elizabeth Alcock, a
distant cousin, by whom the leasehold property was sold
for the benefit of the next-of-kin.
Finding the heir-at-law (to whom the Lordship of
Wirral would pass) was a more difficult matter, and in the
double process practically the whole estate was dissipated.
An inquiry was held at Liverpool to ascertain the heir, and
as Moreton's birth certificate could not then be found, it
was assumed that he was illegitimate, whereupon the
Duchy of Lancaster took possession of all the freehold
property, including the Hundred franchise, as having
escheated to the Crown. Inquiries were, however, still
1 For account of Dr. Goss, see Diet. Nat. Biog. He wrote the introduction to
" Crosby Records " (Chetham Soc.).
THE MORETON WILL CASE 157
prosecuted by speculative persons, with the result that a
very distant connection, named James Moreton, was dis-
covered. He was a wheelwright and very illiterate, and
it was said that his claim was exploited with considerable
advantage to others but practically none to himself. His
advisers successfully brought an action l to recover the
estates from the Crown, James Moreton was declared
heir-at-law, and the deeds relating to the Lordship of
Wirral, were, with the others, handed over by the Duchy.
James Moreton was now Lord of the Hundred of
Wirral and entitled to all that remained of Samuel
Holland Moreton's estates. His friends, however, did
not allow him to benefit very much by this, and he was
kept out of the way in the Isle of Man and elsewhere,
whilst his inheritance gradually disappeared. Upon his
return he was forced to resume his occupation as a
wheelwright at a weekly wage as there was no money
forthcoming.
There is a deed dated September i, i875,2 under
which he seems to have sold all his rights as Lord of
the Hundred of Wirral to Joseph Leather, a veterinary
surgeon in Liverpool. Leather's account of this trans-
action was that Moreton wished to make him a present
of the rights for services rendered, but that he insisted
on paying £20 for them. In some prolonged litigation
which ensued between them in connection with the
1 Moreton v. A. G. of Duchy of Lanes. Judgment given, June 25, 1872.
z In the possession of F. E. Roberts, Esq., solicitor, Chester.
158 THE WAPENTAKE OF WIRRAL
recovered estates, Moreton denied this and stated that
he had no knowledge of the transaction. After a lengthy
trial before Vice-Chancellor Bacon, all the transactions
between the parties were ordered to be reopened and in-
vestigated, but a compromise was subsequently arranged.
One of the terms of settlement was that Leather should
re-transfer the Hundred rights to James Moreton. This
was carried out by a deed of March 19, 1879,* and James
Moreton resumed his Lordship of the Hundred of
Wirral, and the ownership of such of Samuel Moreton's
property as survived the ten years of incessant litigation.
James Moreton lived for a few years longer, and
during his life some attempts were made from time to
time to enforce the few rights which survived to the
Lord of the Hundred. Notices were sent to fishermen
and others claiming any sturgeon caught on the coasts
of the Dee and Mersey, but produced no results, as
the fish were usually cooked and eaten or sold without
regard to the notices, and it was not worth while
attempting to proceed against the fishermen.
When the Manchester Ship Canal was commenced
notices were served upon the promoters claiming com-
pensation in respect of the foreshore of the Mersey, but
the Canal Company declined to admit that the Lord of
the Hundred of Wirral had any right to the foreshore,
1 In the possession of F. E. Roberts, Esq. , solicitor, Chester. The writer was
baffled for a long time by this re-transfer in his search for the present owners of the
franchise, as he not unnaturally assumed it had passed on to the descendants of
Leather.
THE MORETON WILL CASE 159
and the claim was dropped. This must have been the
last effort made to establish any of the Hundred rights,
and forms a curious link between ancient and modern
times.
James Moreton died in September 1883, and under
his will (which was proved at Liverpool) the last remnants
of the franchise of the Hundred of Wirral passed with
his other property to his executors, Charles Stanyer and
William Dutton, upon trusts for sale for the benefit of
his three sisters, Catherine Dodd, Jane Lee, and Margaret
Green, and their respective children.
For the past twenty years no attempt has been made
to exercise any of the lord's rights, and we can safely
bring our account of the franchise of the Hundred of
Wirral to a close at this point, as doubtless nothing
more will ever be heard of it except in the unlikely
event of a find of valuable Treasure Trove, when it might
be worth while for the numerous persons now entitled
to an interest under the will of the last lord to put
forward their claim.
APPENDIX No. I
List of Officers and Lords of the Hundred of Wirral
(The names and figures for the years when the Hundred was not farmed are printed in italics.)
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1352
RANULPH RAKET )
HENRY DE CHORLETON j
934
M. A. 784, 2, m. 3.
The first year for which
the Sheriffs' accounts
survive (see App. II.
No. i). The rent is
made up of 3 farms :
the bedelry,j£7, i6s. 8d. ;
the waifs, 135. 4d. ; and
the half perquisites, &c.
135. <}d. In Bucklow
Hundred the bedelry
/
rent was^5, i6s. 4d. , and
f
the half perquisites 155.
1353
THURSTAN DE TILDESLEIGH )
PHILIP EUYAS f
934
M. A. 784, 3, m. 3.
1354
THURSTAN DE TILDESLEIGH )
(quarter of year only) )
2 13 4
M. A. 784, 5.
For the last three-quar-
ters of year the revenue
is collected by ap-
provers, the bedelry pro-
ducing j£5, 153. id. , the
Henry de Chorleton \
,
waifs i6s. , and the per-
Ranulph Raket )
702
quisites 155. id.
1355
ROBERT DE PULLE
12 0 0
M. A. 784, 6, m. 2.
The rent of bedelry
raised to £10, 133. 4d.
That of Bucklow raised
to £7, i8s.
1356
••
12 0 0
M. A. 784, 7.
161
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriff's Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
I3S7
ROBERT DE PULLE
£ * d.
12 0 0
M. A. 784, 10.
1358
Henry de Chorleton
5 4 i
M. A. 785, 4.
The actual revenue of
the 3 items ^3, los. 7d.,
243. 6d. , and gs. respec-
tively.
1359
Henry de Chorleton \
Henry Coly )
79 ij 6
M. A. 785, 7.
The perquisites pro-
duced j£is, 155. sd.
zj6o
Henry Coly
17 ^3 i
M. A. 785, 8.
The perquisites pro-
duced £12, 153. 7d.
1361
Henry Coly \
Henry del Meoles]
12 18 9
M. A. 785, 9, m. 4.
The waifs in Bucklow
produced 273. ; in Brox-
ton> ;£$• os- 4^. ; in
Wirral, i8s. 6d.
1362
•:. }
[?]
M. A. 786, i, 9.
Record decayed.
Kte
:. }
9 14 "
M. A. 786, 4.
1364
HENRY COLY
II 0 0
M. A. 786, 5.
The farms resumed,
the bedelry at j£8, the
waifs at los. and the
half perquisites at 503.
I3<5S
»
II 0 0
M. A. 786, 6.
1366
»
II 0 0
M. A. 786, 7.
1367
-
II 0 0
M. A. 786, 8.
1368
[? H. Coly]
II 0 O
M. A. 787, i.
No bedell's name given.
1369
[roll missing]
APPENDIX I
163
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
'370
H. Coly
£ S- d±
to i 8
M. A. 787, 2.
The revenue included
,£8. 55. 8d. bedelry
and perquisites, and
335. fines for "putura"
and from freeholders.
No profit from prison
suit.
1371
[? Farmer not named]
7 10 o
M. A. 787, 4.
1372
H. COLY
10 0 0
M. A. 787, 5, m. 4.
An inclusive farm of
the Hundred which in-
cluded the waifs, the
perquisites, the bedelry,
the serjeanty of the
peace, stallage, and
apparently " pelf."
.,£20, 2s. was paid for
the same in Bucklow.
1373
»
10 0 0
M. A. 787, 7, m. 4.
1374
[record missing]
1375
[record missing]
1376
WILLIAM DE MEOLES )
WILLIAM DE RENTON j
10 0 0
M. A. 787, 8.
1377
[record missing]
1378
WILLIAM DE NEUTON\
His PARTNER J
10 0 0
M. A. 787, 9, m. 4.
1379
[record missing]
1380
DAVID DE STANAY
10 0 0
M. A. 788, 2.
1381
"
10 0 0
M. A. 788, 3.
164
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue wlien
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1382
DAVID DE STANAY
£ *• d.
10 0 0
M. A. 788, 4.
1383
THOMAS DE SAYNESBURY \
WILLIAM, SON OF THOS. DE v
PULTON J
968
M. A. 788, 6, m. 4.
1384
:: }
968
M. A. 788, 8, m. 4.
The farm of Broxton
Hundred £20.
I38S
:: !
968
M. A. 789, i.
1386
HENRY LE BRUYN )
RICHARD DE PRESTELOND f
900
M. A. 789, 5, m. 4.
The farmers are de-
scribed as " ballivi,"
and not as bedells.
1387
WILLIAM LE BROUN
968
M. A. 789, 6.
Bedell.
1388
WILLIAM DEL BROME
9 13 4
M. A. 789, 7.
1389
WILLIAM DEL BROOME
9 13 4
M. A. 789, 8, m. 4.
1390
HENRY LE BRUYN )
RICHARD DE PRESTLOND j
10 0 0
M. A. 789, 10, m. 4.
The same farmers as in
1386, but called bedells.
1391
"
10 O 0
C. R. R. 64, m. 2,
d. 9.
This lease is enrolled
(see App. II. No. 2).
The farm of Broxton
j£i2, 135. 4d., Edis-
bury £8.
1392
"
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 3, m. 4.
The farm of Nantwich
Hundred £10.
1393
••
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 5, m. 7.
1394
••
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 6, m. 4.
1395
»
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 7, m. 6.
The farm of Edisbury
£12, 6s. 8d.
APPENDIX I
165
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheri/s' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1396
THOMAS DE WALEY
£ *. d.
10 0 0
C. R. R. 70, m. 4,
d. 8.
M. A. 790, 8, m. 5.
This lease is enrolled
(see App. II. No. 3).
The farm of Edisbury
/io, Broxton £12,
Northwich ,£5, 6s. 8d.
1397
THOMAS DE WALEY >
ROGER DEL BROME j
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 9, m. 4.
The farm of Edisbury
£4, Bucklow £7, 6s. 8d.
1398
ROBERT LE BAUMVILL)
WILLIAM WYLABOY j
10 0 0
M. A. 790, 10, m. 5.
The farm of Bucklow
£?, 6s. 8d.
1399
THOMAS DEL LEE )
JOHN LE LYTEL j
800
M. A. 791, i, m. 7.
1400
••
800
M. A. 791, 3, m. 7.
The farm of Bucklow
j£n. Broxton £11.
1401
THOMAS MAYCOK )
WILLIAM WYLBRAM j
800
M. A. 791, 5.
1402
JOHN DE SAYNESBURY \
HUGH DE BRUMBURGH J
800
M. A. 791, 6, m. 5.
C. R. R. 76, m. 13
(")
This lease is enrolled
(see App. II. No. 4).
1403
THOMAS DE MAYNWARYNG )
ROGER TRULL (
8 10 o
M. A. 791, 7, m. 5.
1404
HENRY COLY 1
THOMAS COLY j
8 10 o
M. A. 791, 10, m. 5.
1405
ALEXANDER TOMMESSONE )
RICHARD DE BENTON j
8 10 o
M. A. 792, i, m. 6.
1406
JOHN RATHBON )
JOHN GOODFELAGH )
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 2, m. 6.
1407
THOMAS DENYS )
JOHN DE HOLME )
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 3, m. 6.
1408
JOHN LE BARKER OF WALEY- \
SEE >
JOHN HAYNE OF CAPENHURST J
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 5, m. 6.
i66
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1409
ROBERT DE WYSWALE )
HENRY DEL BROOME j
£ *. d.
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 6, m. 7.
The farm of Edisbury
£8, 135. 4d.
1410
JOHN LE CHALONER )
JOHN BENET j
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 8.
1411
[?]
nil
M. A. 792, 9.
The account is only
from Mich. 1411 to
Jan. 14, 1412. No re-
ceipts from the farms
of the Hundreds of
Cheshire, nor from the
waifs, nor from prison
suit. The perquisites
of all the Hundreds
were apparently at
farm, but no name is
given.
1412
THOMAS MAYZOWSONE OF")
PULLE V
WILLIAM HARE J
8 13 4
M. A. 792, 10.
No profit from prison
suit.
1413
HENRY DE WALAY )
THOMAS JANKYNSON j
8 13 4
M. A. 793, i, m. 7.
No receipts from prison
suit.
1414
HENRY WALAY )
ROGER BROME )
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 2.
1415
HENRY ADAM J
THOMAS BROUNE )
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 3.
1416
WILLIAM MARTYN )
RICHARD LE HARPER j
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 5.
1417
THOMAS HOLDEN >
HENRY WALAY j
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 6.
1418
HENRY DEL CLYF )
HENRY DE WALAY j
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 8.
APPENDIX I
167
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1419
RICHARD ALMORE )
HENRY DYKYNSON )
£ '. d.
8 13 4
M. A. 793, 10.
1420
ROBERT DE THORNETON )
ROBERT BRYDE j
8 13 4
M. A. 794, i.
Tbe Sheriff accounts
for 43. fines of judgers
and suitors of the Hun-
dred of Wirral " pro
sectis suis hoc anno
integro comitatus ces-
triensis apud cestrien-
sem relaxandis. ' ' [This
kind of entry frequently
appears.]
1421
HENRY LEDSHAM)
HUGH Doo J
8 13 4
M. A. 794, 2.
1422
RICHARD JACSON OF BACK-")
FORD V
JOHN DE KNOWESLEY j
8 13 4
M. A. 794, 3, m. 12.
1423
JOHN Fox \
JOHN DENWALL j
8 13 4
M. A. 794, 4, m. 12.
1424
JOHN JEVANSONE \
RICHARD LE CHALONER OF V
LEGHTON J
800
M. A. 794, s,m. 13.
I42S
JOHN JEVANSONE )
WILLIAM BEBYNGTON j
800
M. A. 794,7, m. 13.
1426
JOHN PRAUNSON 1
WILLIAM BROUNE j
700
M. A. 794,9, m. 13.
1427
WILLIAM FAYRY >
THOMAS DE SECOME J
700
M. A. 795, i, m. 13.
1428
JOHN HOBSON )
HENRY DE WALEY j
700
M. A. 795, 3, m. 12.
1429
JOHN SAYNESBURY )
WILLIAM FAYREE J
700
M. A. 795, 4, m.
12 d.
i68
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue -when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1430
WILLIAM FAYREE
£ *• d.
700
M. A. 795, 5, m.
13 d.
1431
JOHN SAYNESBURY )
HUGH Doo j
700
M. A. 795, 6, 15, d.
1432
••
700
M. A. 795, 7, m.
i6d.
1433
••
700
M. A. 795, 8, m.
17 d.
1434
JOHN SEYNESBURY )
WILLIAM FAIRRIE )
834
M. A. 795, 9, m.
i6d.
1435
ROBERT BRYDDE )
HENRY DE WALEY )
834
M. A. 795, 10, m.
17 d.
1436
HENRY WALLEY )
[record decayed] )
P]
M. A. 796, i, m.
15 d.
1437
ROBERT BRYDD 1
HENRY WALLEY j
834
M. A. 756, 3, m.
i6d.
1438
WILLIAM SALWHALL \
HAMOND DE LEE j
800
M. A. 796, 4, m.
17 d.
1439
JOHN RATHEBONE )
RALPH SMYTH j
800
M. A. 796, 5, m.
iSd.
1440
PHILIP MOBBURLEY )
JOHN HEBSON j
800
M. A. 796, 6, m.
i6d.
1441
ROBERT MOBURLEY )
ROBERT BRID )
800
M. A. 796, 7, m.
14 d.
1442
••
800
M. A. 796, 8, m.
12 d.
APPENDIX I
169
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no l^ase.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1443
RICHARD MOBERLEY )
WILLIAM BROMBORGH j
£ J. d.
800
M. A. 796, 9, m.
13 d.
1444
JOHN SMYTH )
JOHN CALDAY f
800
M. A. 796, 10, m. 12.
The farm of Nantwich,
£7, 33. 4d.
I44S
SIR THOMAS STANLEY, KT."|
GEOFFREY STARKEY
ROBERT MORE J
700
M. A. 797, i, m. 12.
C. R. R. 119, m.
6, u.
Lease of office of bailiff
and bedell for 20 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 5). The rent is
paid regularly up to
and including 1459,
when the lease seems
to have come to an
end. The farm of Edis-
bury £8.
1460-1
Thomas Whityngham
/ IO 0
M. A. 798, 7, m. 10.
The approver could
only collect 303. for the
two years covered by
this account.
1462
P]
2 15 7
M. A. 798, 9, m. 10.
i*<>3
[?]
224
M. A. 798, 10, m. 10.
1464
[?]
I IO 0
M. A. 799, i, m. n.
1465
[?]
o 16 9
M. A. 799, 3, m. 9.
1466
Geoffrey Wolley
z 5 o
M. A. 799, 4, m. 8.
1467
{Edmund Litherlanrf]
M. A. 799, 5, m. 8.
The Sheriff returns no
profits from the Hun-
dred as EdmundLither-
land, the bailiff of
Wirral, took them.
1468
[Henry Litherland \
William Aleyn} ]
M. A. 799, 6, m. 8.
No return by the Sheriff,
but he is debited with
303. in respect of the
revenue for this and
the preceding years.
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1469
[John Bowland \
Roger Oldefield\ )
£ *. d.
M. A. 799, 7, m. 8.
No return by the Sheriff,
but he is debited with
2os. 8d. collected by
the bailiffs of Wirral.
1470
[?]
M. A. 799, 8, m. 7.
No return. The Sheriff
debited with 175.
1471
[record missing]
1473
Roger Oldefield )
John Bowland )
o 16 i
M. A. 799, 9, m. 8.
'473
John Bowland \
Geoffrey Wollor]
I O O
M. A. 800, i, m. 7.
1474
William Ormeston >
Robert Cristelton J
104
M. A. 800, 2, m. 7.
1475
WILLIAM KESTY [?] )
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 3, m. 8.
The first lease since the
ROGER HULL j
of 1445.
1476
WILLIAM KESTY )
ROGER HULL j
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 4, m. 9.
1477
WILLIAM KESTY )
JOHN TYLIAT f
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 5, m. 8.
1478
JOHN TYLIAT )
THOMAS WHITOFF j
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 6, m. 8.
1479
..
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 7, m. 7.
1480
..
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 8, m. 8.
1481
..
I 6 8
M. A. 800, 10, m. 8.
1482
ROGER OLDEFIELD )
HENRY TAILLOUR f
I 6 8
M. A. 801, i, m. 7.
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1483
[record missing]
£ *• d.
1484
ROGER OLDEFIELD )
HENRY TAILLOUR j
I 6 8
M. A. 801, a.
1485
ROGER OLDEFIELD )
WILLIAM KESTY f
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1500, m.
9d.
No income from the
fines of judgers and
suitors of the Hundreds,
which in 18 Ric. II.
produced £13.
1486
"
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1501, m. 6.
1487
•>
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1502, m. 6.
1488
JOHN TILLIAT )
RICHARD BEBYNGTON j
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1503 ,m. 7.
1489
"
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1504, m. 7.
1490
-.
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1506.
1491
>»
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1508, m. 7.
1492
JOHN TILLIAT )
THOMAS GELIBROUNDE )
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1509, m. 7.
1493
JAMES BEBYNTON )
JOHN AP ITHELL j
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1510, m. 7.
1494
-
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1511, m. 9.
1495
•'
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1512, m.
10.
1496
••
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1513, m. 8.
172
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue -when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1497
RICHARD WILBRAHAM )
JOHN DANSON j
£ *• d.
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1514, m. 8.
1498
[?]
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1515, m. 9.
1499
[?]
I 7 8
M. A. II. 1516, m. 8.
Probably a mistake for
£i. 6s. 8d.
1500
[?]
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1517, m. 7.
1501
[?]
I 6 8
M.A. II. 1518, m. 9.
1502
P]
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1519, m. 9.
The account is dated
17-18 Hen. VIII., but
should be dated 18-19
Hen. VIII.
1503-
4-5
[records missing]
It seems doubtful if any
accounts ever were ren-
dered for these 3 years.
1506
JOHN AP ITHELL )
JAMES BEBYNGTON j
I 6 8
M. A. II. 1520, m.
12.
1507-8
ROBERT TRAFFORD
I 10 0
M. A. II. 1522, m.
13-
C. R. R. 176, m.
9, 2.
A lease for 2 years
(enrolled. See App.
II. No. 6).
1509-
23
JOHN AP ITHELL )
JAMES BEBYNGTON )
i ii 8
C. R. R. 179, m. i.
M. A. (Chester) i &
2 Hen. VIII.
A lease for 14 years
(enrolled. See App.
II. No. 7). Rent in-
creased is. 8d.
Farm of Edisbury
£6, IDS.
1524-
28
"
I il 8
M. A. (Chester) 16-
21 Hen. VIII.
The lease of 1509 appa-
rently renewed.
The enrolments can-
not be found.
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
I52Q
JOHN AP ITHELL
£ s. d
I II 8
M. A. (Chester) 21
Hen. VIII.
1530-
95
[?]
I II 8
M. A. (Chester) 22
Hen. VIII.-36
Eliz.
The M. A. do not give
the lessee's name for a
period of 65 years and
no enrolments can be
found. The bedell is not
mentioned after the end
of Hen. VIII. North-
wichisletfor^7, is. 8d.
in 1538. Bucklow for
£2, os. 4d. in 1558, and
Nantwich for £8 in
i59i.
1596
CUTHBERT VENABLES
I II 8
Aug. Office, Mis-
cell. Books, 228,
f. 148.
Lease for 21 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 8).
1628
WILLIAM TRAFFORD
I II 8
Land Rev. Enrol,
vol. clvii. f. 122.
Lease for 27 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 9).
[?]
SIR WILLIAM MASSY
Royalist Composi-
tion Papers, 1646.
Transferee.
1662
JOHN CARTER
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 2859.
Lease for 21 years.
Rent increased £i (en-
rolled. See App. II,
No. 10).
1679
THOMAS DOD (on a surrender )
by RANDLE DOD) j
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 3261.
Lease for 31 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. n). The rent of
the Hundred of Buck-
low in 1681, £2, 75.
P]
EDWARD GLEGG
Transferee [?].
1704
JOHN SCORER
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 3801.
Lease for 25 years in
trust for John Glegg
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 12). The rent of
the Hundred of Buck-
low in 1701, £a, 75.
and £i heriot.
APPENDIX I
Year.
Names of Bedells and Farmers,
or
Names of Sheriffs' Approvers.
Rent
or
Revenue when
no Lease.
Reference or
Authority.
Remarks.
1734
JOHN GLEGG
£ s. d
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 4373.
Lease for 29 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 13).
1759
••
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 5099.
Lease for 25 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 14).
1768
JOHN GLEGG (SON OF ABOVE)
Land Rev. Enrol,
vol. xvi.
Deed of transfer (en-
rolled. See App. II.
No. 15).
1786
2 II 8
Pipe Office, Crown
Leases, 6012
Lease for 27 years
(enrolled. SeeApp. II.
No. 16). The rent of
the Hundred of Buck-
low, £2, IQS. raised in
1813 to £3, IDS.
1802
BlRKENHEAD GLEGG
As heir of John Glegg.
Year.
Lords of the Hundred.
Reference.
Remarks.
1820
JOHN WILLIAMS
Land Rev. Enrol, vol. xviii. f. 35.
The Hundred sold by
the Crown for .£230.
(Deed enrolled. See
App. II. No. 17).
1829
SAMUEL WILLIAMS
Mortgage deeds 23-24 Feb. 1829.
1854
SAMUEL SPENCER
Will of Samuel Williams.
1854
SAMUEL HOLLAND MORETON
Deed, Sept. 23, 1854.
Sale of the Hundred
for £99, 195.
1872
JAMES MORETON
As heir-at-law.
1883
The devisees under the will of
James Moreton
APPENDIX No. II
Leases, etc., of the Hundred of Wirral from 1352 to 1820
PRELIMINARY NOTE
IN view of their inaccessibility the writer has printed all the enrolled
leases. Except of the first document no translations seem necessary.
The leases in English will be sufficient for the general reader, whilst
others will prefer the original Latin. The deed of 1820 is fully printed,
as seems desirable, seeing that a mutilated copy is given in Mortimer's
" History of Wirral." The deeds subsequent to 1 820 are in the ordinary
forms of deeds relating to freehold property and are of no interest.
No. i
Farms of the Hundred of Wirral, 1352
EXTRACT FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THOMAS DANYERS, SHERIFF OF
CHESTER. (M.A. CHESTER, BUNDLE 784. No. 2.)
Exitus vagorum. [Idem respondet] de xiijs iiijd de exitibus vagorum
Hundredi de Wirhal sic affirmatis Ranulpho Raket et
Henrico de Chorleton, bedellis hoc anno :
Perquisita Hun- et de xiijs iiijd de medietate perquisitorum Hundredi
dredorum. de Wirhal sic affirmata Ranulpho Raket et Henrico
de Chorleton, bedellis hoc anno. Unde alia medietas
pertinet eisdem bedellis ratione firme sue per con-
vencionem.
Firma Bedel- et de vij11 xvjs viijd de firma bedelerie Hundredi de
lorum Wirhal sic affirmate hoc anno Ranulpho Raket et
Henrico de Chorleton bedellis, per dictos camerarium
et vicecomitem, qui capient ratione firme sue medietatem perquisitorum
et amerciamentorum totius Hundredi, puturam vel finem pro putura de
antiquo delicto per loca in Hundredo predicto, fines diversorum liberorum
tenentium per cartam quorum terre et tenementa non excedunt valorem
175
176 APPENDIX II
xls per annum ne faciant summonitiones in panellis, terciam partem
valoris vagorum per eos presentatorum, et suetam de indictatis1 de
transgressionibus a tempore brevis vicecomitis percepti pro eisdem
attachiatis respectuandis usque proximum comitatum.
TRANSLATION %
Issues of the [He answers] for 135. 4d. in respect of the issues of
waifs. the felons' goods of the Hundred of Wirhal let to farm
to Ranulph Raket and Henry de Chorleton the bedells
for this year :
Perquisites of the and for 135. 4d. for one half of the perquisites of the
Hundreds. Hundred of Wirhal let to farm to Ranulph Raket and
Henry de Chorleton the bedells for this year; the
other half belongs to the bedells by reason of their
farm by customary agreement :
Farm of the and for £7, i6s. 8d. from the farm of the bedelry of
Bedells. the Hundred of Wirhal let to farm for this year by the
said Chamberlain and Sheriff to Ranulph Raket and
Henry de Chorleton the bedells, who will take by reason of their farm
half of the perquisites and amerciaments of the whole Hundred ; puture
or a fine in lieu thereof in respect of the ancient obligation in various
places in the said Hundred; the fines paid by divers freemen holding
by charter whose lands and tenements do not exceed in value 405. per
annum, to avoid having to serve the jury summonses ; a third part of
the value of the felons' goods presented by them ; and suit from those
indicted for trepasses from the time of the sheriff's writ being received
for respiting the same attached persons until the next County Court.
NOTE. — This entry occurs more or less in the same form until 1372. The chief
variations are in the words immediately following- "suetam," which are either " in-
dictatorum de transgressionibus " or " prisonum indictatorum." The meaning seems
the same. " Debito " is sometimes written for " delicto." In 1372 an inclusive farm
was taken " Vagorum, perquisitorum hundredi, bedelrie, serjantie pacis et stallagii
Hundredi de Wyrhall " and apparently included " certa bona et catalla felonum et
fugitivorum que vocantur pelf.:> (M.A. 787, 5, m. 4).
1 Always hitherto read as "medietate," but the writer's suggestion that it was "in-
dictatis " was verified by Mr. W. K. Boyd after the roll had been treated with solution.
APPENDIX II 177
No. 2
Lease of the Bedelry of the Hundred of Wirral to Henry
le Bruyn and Richard de Prestlond, 1391
(C. R. R. No. 64, M. 2, D. 9.)
Cognitio pro do- HENRICUS LE BRUYN de Morton et Ricardus de Prest-
ntino Rege. lond venerunt in scaccario hie die et anno predictis l
et ceperunt ad firmam officium bedellarie hundredi de
Wirehale per tempus predictum 2 Reddentes domino regi pro officio
predicto per idem tempus x libras per manucapcionem coram vicecomite
inveniendam. Et nisi, etc.
No. 3
Lease of the Bedelry to Thomas de Waley, 1397
(C. R. R. No. 70, M. 4, D. 8.)
Dimissio offici- THOMAS DE WALEY venit in scaccario hie die et anno
orum Bedellari- predictis 3 coram prefatis camerario et vicecomite et
arum Hundred- cepit ad firmam officium Bedellarie in hundredo de
orum in comitatu Wirehale Tenendum per tempus predictum4 Reddens
Cestriae. inde domino regi per idem tempus hie ad scac-
carium predictum x libras solvendas ad festa predicta
equaliter.
No. 4
Lease of the Bedelry to John de Saynesbury and
Hugo de Brumburgh, 1403
(C. R. R. No. 76, M. 13, u.)
Dimissio ad fir- JOHANNES DE SAYNESBURY unus ballivorum vice-
wow bedellarie comitis Cestrie in hundredo de Wirehale venit in
hundredi de scaccario hie IX. die Augusti anno regni regis Henrici
Wyrehale. quarti post conquestum quarto et cepit ad firmam tarn
nomine suo proprio quam nomine Hugonis de Brum-
burgh consortis sui et alterius ballivorum in hundredo predicto officium
bedellarie hundredi de Wyrehale Habendum sibi cum omnibus exitibus
1 5th Oct., 15 Ric. II. 2 One year from Michaelmas.
3 2 ist Feb., 20 Ric. II. 4 One year from Michaelmas last.
M
1 78 APPENDIX II
et proficuis eidem officio pertinentibus sive spectantibus a festo sancti
Michaelis anno regni regis Henrici post conquestum tercio usque festum
sancti Michaelis extunc proxime sequens Reddens inde domino comiti
Cestrie viii libras solvendas ad festum sancti Michaelis proxime futurum.
NO. 5
Henry VI.'s Lease to Sir Thomas Stanley and others, 1445
(C. R. R. No. 119, M. 6, 10 & u.)
Dimissio ad fir- REX etc. Omnibus ad quos presentes litterae pervene-
mam Hundredi rint Salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus et ad firmam
de Wyrehale. dimisimus dilecto et fideli nostro Thome Stanley militi
Galfrido Starkey de Northwico et Roberto More
officium ballivi et bedellarie hundred! de [Wyrehale] l cum omnibus
exitibus proficuis Turnis vicecomitis et aliis commoditatibus eidem
officio qualicumque pertinentibus sive spectantibus Habendum eisdem
Thome Galfrido et Roberto a festo Sancti Michaelis ultime preterite usque
finem termini viginti annorum extunc proxime sequentium plenarie
complendorum Reddendum inde nobis annuatim ad scaccarium nostrum
Cestrie septem libras ad festa Pasche et Sancti Michaelis equaliter.
In cujus rei testimonum has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes.
Teste me ipso apud Cestriam xii die Octobris anno regni nostri
vicesimo quarto.
No. 6
Henry VII.'s Lease of the Hundred to Robert Trafford, 1507
(C. R. R. No. 176, M. 9, 2.)
[Dimissio] ad HENRICUS etc. Omnibus etc. Sciatis quod nos per
\firmam\ \Ro- manucapcionem Johannis Trafford capellani concessi-
ber\to \Traffor\d mus et ad firmam dimisimus Roberto Trafford omnes
Hundredi de exitus placitorum hundredi de Wirehall necnon fines
Wyrehall. amerciamenta forisfacturas et commoditates ballivae
predictae pertinentes sive aliquo modo spectantes cum
exercitacione et occupacione ballivae predictae Habendum et Tenendum
1 The same parties took a lease of the Hundred of Eddisbury, which is fully enrolled
as above, and is followed by an abridged " consimilis dimissio " of the Hundred of
Wyrehale.
APPENDIX II 179
eidem Roberto et assignatis suis a festo sancti Michaelis Archangel!
ultirae preterite usque finem termini duorum annorum extunc proxime
sequentium et plenarie complendorum Reddendum inde annuatim nobis
et heredibus nostris comitibus Cestrie ad scaccarium nostrum ibidem
viginti sex solidos et octo denarios prout responsum fuit in compotis
precedentibus et tres solidos et quatuor denarios ultra de incremento
Solvendos ad festa Pasche et Sancti Michaelis Archangeli per equales
porciones.
In cujus rei etc. Teste etc. Primo die Decembris anno regni nostri
vicesimo tercio.
No. 7
Henry VIII.'s Lease of the Hundred to John ap Ithell
and James Bebynton, 1509
(C. R. R. No. 179, M. i.)
HENRICUS dei gratia Rex Anglic et Francie et dominus Hibernie Omni-
bus ad quos presentes litterae pervenerint. Salutem. Sciatis quod nos
per manucapcionem Johannis Glegge de Gayton armigeri concessimus
et ad firmam dimisimus Johanni ap Ithell et Jacobo Bebynton et eorum
alteri omnes exitus et proficua officui Ballivi et Bedellarie hundredi
nostri de Wirehall in comitatu Cestrie Habendum et tenenendum eisdem
Johanni et Jacobo et assignatis suis a festo Sancti Michaelis Arch-
angeli ultime preterito usque finem termini quatuor decem annorum
extunc proxime sequentium et plenarie complendorum Reddendum
inde annuatim nobis ad [scaccarium] nostrum Cestrie triginta solidos
et viginti denarios de incremento annuatim solvendos ad festa Pasche
et Sancti Michaelis Archangeli per equales porciones.
In cujus rei testimonium has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes.
Teste me ipso apud Cestriam decimo Januarii anno regni nostri primo.
No. 8
Queen Elizabeth's Lease to Cuthbert Venables, 1596
(AUGMENTATION MISCELL. BOOKS, 228, FOL. 148.)
Cestria. REGINA omnibus ad quos etc. Salutem. Sciatis quod
nos pro quadam pecuniae summa nomine finis ad
Receptorem Scaccarii nostri ad usum nostrum per dilectum nobis
i8o APPENDIX II
Cuthbertum Venables soluta de avisamento dilectorum et fidelium
consiliariorum nostrorum Willelmi Baron de Burghley Thesaurarii
nostri Anglie et Johannis Fortescue militis Cancellarii et subthesaurarii
curiae Scaccarii nostri Tradidimus concessimus et ad firmam dimisimus
ac per presentes Tradimus concedimus et ad firmam dimittimus prefato
Cuthberto Venables Totum illud Hundredum nostrum de Wyrehall
cum suis juribus membris et pertinentiis universis in comitatu nostro
Cestriae Ac omnes illos certos annuales redditus ad dictum hundredum
solubiles spectantes et pertinentes ac etiam omnes et omnimodi curias
letas visum franciplegii ac perquisita et proficua earundem ac etiam
fines et amerciamenta in curia [de Turno] vicecomitis in hundredo pre-
dicto facta necnon felonum et fugitivorum felonum sectam ad curiam
hundredi predicti ac relevia escaetas exitus lez lawdayes assaiam et
assisas panis vini bere et cervisie waviata bona et catalla felonum et
fugitivorum felonum de se et in exigendis positorum condempnatorum
et utlagatorum extrahuras theolonia custumas consuetudines deodanda
jurisdictiones privilegia proficua commoditates advantagia et emolu-
menta quecunque hundredo predicto pertinentia sive spectantia aut
infra hundredum predictum accidentia provenientia renovantia sive
emergentia in tarn amplis modo et forma pro-ut aliquis Comes aut
aliqui Comites in Cestria in jure aut racione hundredi predicti unquam
habuit tenuit vel gavisus fuit habuere tenuere vel gaudere debuere aut
debuit ac pro-ut ea omnia et singula premissa ad manus nostras devenere
aut devenire debuerunt aut debent parcellam possessionum olim
Comitis Cestriae in dicto Comitatu Exceptis tamen semper et nobis
heredibus et successoribus nostris omnino reservatis omnibus et
omnimodi finibus et amerciamentis et exitibus annuatim de tempore
in tempus provenientibus crescentibus sive renovantibus in aliqua
Curia sive aliquibus curiis nostris de Recordo (preterquam in Curia
Hundredi predicti) sive coram Justiciariis nostris ad assisas sive coram
Justiciariis nostris ad pacem aut clerico mercati provenientibus cres-
centibus sive renovantibus ac pro libertate levacionum et colleccionum
infra hundredum predictum Habendum et Tenendum predictum Hun-
dredum ac cetera omnia et singula premissa superius per presentes
dimissa cum eorum juribus membris libertatibus privilegiis et perti-
APPENDIX II 181
nentiis universis (exceptis pre-exceptis) prefato Cuthberto Venables
executoribus et assignatis suis a festo Sancti Michaelis Archangeli
ultime preterite usque ad finem termini et per terminum viginti et
unius annorum extunc proxime sequentium et plenarie complendorum
Reddendum inde annuatim nobis heredibus successoribus nostris
trigenta unum solidos et octo denarios legalis monetae Anglic ad
festa Annunciacionis Beate Marie Virginis et Sancti Michaelis Arch-
angeli ad Receptorem Scaccarii nostri seu ad manus Ballivi vel Recep-
torum pro tempore existente per equates porciones solvendos durante
termino predicto. Proviso semper quod si contigeret predictum red-
ditum superius per presentes reservatum sic aretro fore non solutum
in parte vel in toto per spacium quadraginta dierum post aliquod
festum festorum predictorum quo ut prefertur solvi debeat quod tune
et deinceps haec presens dimissio et concessio vacua sit ac pro nihilo
teneatur aliquo in presentibus in contrarium inde non obstante aliquo
statute etc. In cujus rei etc. Teste etc. apud Westmonasterium vice-
simo die Februarii anno regni nostri tricesimo octavo.
No. 9
Charles I.'s Lease to William Trafford, 1628
(LAND REVENUE ENROLMENTS, VOL. CLVII. FOL. 122.)
Indentura Wil- THIS Indenture made the vth daye of November anno
lelmi Trafford Domini 1628 and in the iiijth yeere of the raigne of our
pro Hundredo Soveraigne Lorde Charles by the grace of God Kinge
de Were hall in of England Scotland France and Ireland defender of
Comitatu Cestrie. the faith &c. Betweene Sir John Walter Knight
Chiefe Baron of his Majestes Courte of Exchequer, Sir
James Fullerton Knight one of the Gentlemen of his Majestes Bed-
chamber, and Sir Thomas Trevor Knight one of the Barons of his
Majestes saide Courte of Exchequer, of the one parte, and William
Trafford of BridgtrafFord in the Countye of Chester gentleman, of the
other parte : Whereas the saide Sir John Walter, Sir James Fullerton
and Sir Thomas Trevor doe stand and are possessed amongst other
1 82 APPENDIX II
thinges of and in the Hundred of Wirehall with the rightes members
and appurtenances in the Countye of Chester parcell of the ancient
possessions of the Earle of Chester for the terme of divers yeeres yet
enduringe to and for the onlye use and behoofe of the Kinges Majestic :
And whereas theire was a composition made the xxiiijth daye of
November 1624 by his Majestes Comissioners of that revenue which
he had when he was Prince of Wales, to and with the saide William
Trafford for a lease of all the thinges hereinafter graunted for the
terme of xxxitie yeeres to comence from the Feaste of Saint Michael
Tharchangell last paste before the date of the saide composition in
consideration of the Fine of x1'- and of the yeerly rente hereinafter
reserved : Which lease hath bine neglected to be sued forth : Now this
Indenture witnesseth that the saide Sir John Walter, Sir James
Fullerton and Sir Thomas Trevor by warrant of his Majestes saide
comission as well for and in consideration of the saide some of xu-
already payde to the handes of his Majestes Receivours Generall of
that revenue which was his Highnes when he was Prince for and in
the name of a fine, as for the yeerly rente hereinafter reserved, have
granted and to Farme letten, And by theis presentes doe graunte and
to Farme lett unto the saide William Trafford : All that Hundred of
Wirehall with the rightes, members and appurtenances what soever
in the saide Countye of Chester and all yearly rentes certaine to the
saide Hundred payeable belonginge or appurteyninge, And allsoe all
and all manner of Courte leetes, viewes of Franckpledge and perquisites
and profittes of the same, and allsoe all Fines and Amerciamentes made
in the Turne Courtes of the Sheriffe in the Hundred afore saide, And
alsoe suite at the Hundred Courte aforesaide, And alsoe Releifes,
escheates, issues, lawedayes, Assisse of Breade, wine, Beere and Ale,
waifes,goodes and chattells of Felons and Fugitives, felons of themselves,
and putt in exigent condempned men, and outlawes, estrayes, Tolles,
customes, deodandes, rightes, jurisdictions, priviledges, profittes,
comodities, advantages and emolumentes whatsoever to the Hundred
aforesaide belonginge or apperteyninge (except and alwayes reserved
out of this present demise and graunte, all fines, issues, and amercia-
mentes, yeerlye and from tyme to tyme cominge, encreasinge or
APPENDIX II 183
renewinge in any Courte or Courtes of record besides in the Hundred
Courte aforesaide or before the Justices of Assisse or before the Kinges
Majestes Justices of Peace, or the Clarke of the Markett with libertye
for the leavyinge and collection of the same within the Hundred afore-
saide) : To have and to holde the saide Hundred of Wirehall, and all
and singular other the premisses with thappurtenances (except before
excepted) unto the saide William Trafford his executours Adminis-
tratours and Assignes from the Feaste of Saint Michael Tharchangelt
last paste before the date hereof unto the full ende and terme of xxvijtie
yeeres, from thence next ensuinge fullye to be compleate and ended.
Yeldinge and payinge and the saide William Trafford for his heires
executours, administratours and assignes doeth covenant and promise to
and with the said Sir John Walter Sir James Fullerton and Sir Thomas
Trevor and theire Assignes by theise presentes to yeelde and paye
therefore yeerely duringe the saide terme the yeerelye rente or some
of xxxjs viijd of lawfull monye of England at twoe usuall Feastes or
termes in the yeere (that is to saye) at the Feastes of Saint Michael
Tharchangell and Thanunciacion of the blessed Virgin Marye by even
and equall portions to be paide to the handes of his Majestes Receiver
or Receivours of the premisses for the tyme beinge to his Majestes use '•
Provided alwayes that if the saide yeerelye rent of xxxjs viijd or any
parte thereof shalbe behinde and unpaide after anye of the saide
Feastes wherin the same ought to be payde by the space of xxiijtie
dayes then this presente lease and graunte to be void, and of none
effect any thinge herein conteyned to the contrarye in any wise not-
withstandinge. And the saide William Trafford for himselfe his heires,
executors, administratours and assignes doeth covenante and graunte
to and with the said Sir John Walter Sir James Fullerton and Sir
Thomas Trevor and theire assignes by these presentes, That he the
saide William Trafford his executours, administratours and assignes,
shall and will from tyme to tyme duringe the saide terme finde and
provide a sufficient Stewarde skillfull in the lawes to keepe the Courtes
within the saide Hundred and shall paye to him his Fees, and shall
beare and paye all chardges and expences whatsoever which shall from
tyme to tyme be necessarilye expended aboute the keepinge of the
i84 APPENDIX n
saide Courtes. And alsoe shall and will yeerleye, and everye yeere
duringe the saide terme make and deliver or cause to be made and
delivered unto the saide Kinges Majestic or his heires or to the
comissionours of his revenue for the tyme being a true and perfec
extract of all the Fines issues and amerciaments and other casualties
profittes and comodityes whatsoever arysing or receaved within the
saide Hundred to the end his Highnes inheritance may be therby the
better knowne and preserved. And shall not doe nor suffer nor consent
to be done anye acte or default whereby his Highnes right to anye of
the saide casualties maye be any waies prejudiced or impared. And
lastlye shall and will enroll this lease or cause the same to be inrolled
before his Majestes Auditor of the premisses within sixe monthes next
after the date hereof upon paine to forfeite to his Majestic his heires
and successors Cs of lawfull monye of Englande for defaulte of such
enrollment.
In witness whereof to the one parte of theise presentes remayninge
in the handes of the saide William Trafford the saide Sir John Walter
Sir James Fullerton and Sir Thomas Trevor by warraunte aforesaide
have putt theire handes and Scales : And to the other parte of the saide
Indenture remayninge in the handes of the saide Sir John Walter Sir
James Fullerton and Sir Thomas Trevor the saide William Trafford
have putt his hande and Scale the daye and yeere above written.
Sealed and delivered by the within named Sir JOHN
WALTER in the presence of
William Wickstead.
Wm. Milles.
Sealed and delivered by the within named Sir JAMES
FULLERTON in the presence of
Nich. Guille.
Ja. Natone.
Sealed and delivered [by] the within named Sir THO.
TREVOR in the presence of
Ed. Harris.
William Wickstead.
APPENDIX II 185
No. 10
Charles II.'s Lease to John Carter, 1662
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 2859.)
Dimissio facta REX omnibus ad quos etc. Salutem. Sciatis quod nos
Johanni Carter tarn pro et in consideracione Increment! redditus
generoso Totius inferius per presentes reservati quam pro quibusdam
illius Hundredi aliis bonis causis et consideracionibus nos ad presens
de Wirehall in moventibus de avisamento dilecti et fidelis consan-
Comitatu pre- guinei et consiliarii nostri Thome comitis Southampton
dido Reddendo summi Thesaurarii nostri Anglic ac etiam dilecti et
per annum xxx? fidelis consiliarii nostri Anthonii Domini Ashley Can-
viiid et XXs de cellarii et subthesaurarii Curie Scaccarii nostri Tradi-
incremento pro dimus Concessimus et ad firmam dimisimus ac per
xxi annis. presentes pro nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris
tradimus concedimus et ad firmam diraittimus dilecto
nobis Johanni Carter generoso totum illud hundredum nostrum de
Wirehall cum suis juribus membris et pertinenciis quibuscunque in
comitatu nostro cestrie ac omnes certos annuales Redditus dicto
Hundredo solubiles spectantes vel pertinentes ac etiam omnia et omni-
moda curias letas et visus franciplegii et perquisita et proficua eorundem
ac etiam omnia fines et amerciamenta facta in Curia de Turno vice-
comitis in dicto Hundredo ac etiam sectam ad curiam Hundredi
predicti Necnon relevia escaetas exitus dierum legalium Curias assisae
panis vini cervisie et zithi waviata bona et catalla felonum et fugitivorum
felonum de se et in exigendis positorum condemptnatorum et utlaga-
torum extrahuras tollneta custumas deodanda jura jurisdictiones
privilegia proficua commoditates advantagia et emolumenta quecunque
dicto Hundredo spectantia vel pertinentia Exceptis tamen semper et
nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris omnino reservatis omnibus
finibus exitibus et amerciamentis annuatim et de tempore in tempus
provenientibus accrescentibus vel renovantibus in aliqua curia vel
curiis nostris de Recordo (preter in curia Hundredi predicti) coram
Justiciariis ad assisas Justiciaries ad pacem vel coram clerico mercati
1 86 APPENDIX II
cum licencia levandi et colligendi eadem infra dictum Hundredum Que
omnia et singula premissa superius per presentes dimissa sunt
Parcella possessionum olim comitis Cestrie in dicto comitatu Habendum
Tenendum et Gaudendum Hundredum predictum ac cetera premissa
superius per presentes dimissa seu dimitti mencionata cum eorum
juribus membris libertatibus et pertinenciis universis (exceptis pre-
exceptis) prefato Johanni Carter [generoso executoribus] et assignatis
suis a festo Annunciationis beate Marie Virginis ultime preterite usque
ad finem termini et per terminum viginti et unius annorum extunc
proxime sequentium et plenarie complendorum Reddendo inde annuatim
nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris triginta unum solidos et octo
denarios legalis monete Anglic (prout antea responsum fuit) necnon
viginti solidos consimilis legalis monete Anglic ultra de incremento per
annum ad festa sancti Michaelis Archangeli et Annunciationis beate
Marie Virginis ad receptam Scaccarii nostri heredum et successorum
nostrorum Westmonasterii seu ad manus vicecomitis Comitatus Cestrie
predicte pro tempore existente per equales porciones Solvendos durante
termino predicto Et predictus Johannes Carter pro se heredibus exe-
cutoribus et assignatis suis convenit et concedit ad et cum nobis
heredibus et successoribus nostris per presentes quod ipse predictus
Johannes executores et assignati sui infra spacium trium annorum
proxime sequentium post datam harum litterarum nostrarum Patentium
et sic deinceps quolibet septimo anno durante termino predicto facient
seu fieri causabunt unum particularem schedulam sive rentale vel
particulare omnium reddituum et proficuorum premissorum predictum
continens tarn nomina et loca habitacionum omnium et quarum
cunque personarum inhabitancium infra hundredum predictum de
quibus predicti redditus et certitudines cum ceteris premissis predictis
sive aliqua inde parcella tempore confeccionis dicti particularis schedule
sive rentalis sunt vel erint solubilia et solvenda quam separalium
villarum et hamlettorum de et pro quibus predicti redditus et certi-
tudines et cetera premissa et unumquemque dictarum personarum et
inhabitancium ut profertur respective tune erint solubilia et eandem
particularem schedulam sive rentale plane et distincte factam et in
pergameno redactam ac manu dicti Johannis Carter executorum vel
APPENDIX II 187
assignatorum suorum signatam et subscriptam in officium Clerico Pipe
quolibet septimo anno ut supradicitur durante predicto termino de-
liberabunt ibidem de Recordo remansuram quo melius et citius officiarii
nostri heredum et successorum nostrorum post expiracionem dicti
termini eosdem annuales redditus et incrementum redditus et quamlibet
inde parcellam ad usum nostrum heredum et successorum nostrorum
colligere et recipere possint et valeant Proviso semper quod si con-
tingent predictum annualem redditum triginta unius solidorum et octo
denariorum vel predictum incrementum redditus viginti solidorum
aretro fore non solutum in parte vel in toto per spacium quadraginta
dierum post aliquod festum festorum predictorum quout prefertur solvi
debeat, Aut si predictus Johannes Carter executores vel assignati sui
non irrotulabunt seu irrotulari causabunt has litteras nostras Patentes
coram Clerico Pipe vel deputato suo sufficiente pro tempore existente
infra spacium sex mensium proxime sequentium post datam eorundem
quod tune et deinceps hec presens dimissio vel concessio nostra vacua
sit ac pro nullo habeatur aliquo in presentibus in contrarium inde non
obstante aliquo Statute etc. In cujus etc.
F. SOUTHAMPTON.
ASHLEY.
[Endorsed] Teste, etc. apud Westmonasterium duo-
decimo die Maii anno regis regni Caroli
Secundi quarto-decimo. xiiii.
No. II
Charles II.'s Lease to Thomas Dod, 1679
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 3261.)
Comitatus Cestrie. REX omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Cum nos per
Dimissio facta litteras nostras Patentes confectas gerentes datam
Thome Dod de duodecimo die Maii anno Regni nostri decimo quarto
1 88 APPENDIX II
Hundredo de pro consideracione in eisdem expressa Tradiderimus
Wirehall cum concesserimuset adfirmamdimiserimuscuidam Johanni
pertinenciis pro Carter generoso totum illud Hundredum nostrum de
termino triginta et Wirehall {etc. as in Carter's leased] Excepto prout per
unius annorum a easdem litteras nostras patentes exceptum existit
festo Annuncia- Habendum tenendum et gaudendum Hundredum pre-
tionis beate Marie dictum ac cetera premissa prefato Johanni Carter
Virginis 1679. executoribus et assignatis suis a festo Annuncia-
Reddendo per tionis beate Marie Virginis tune ultimo preterite
annum quinqua- usque ad finem termini et per terminum viginti et
ginta unum soli- unius annorum extunc proximo sequentium et plenarie
dos et octo de- complendorum sub annuali redditu triginta unius soli-
narios. dorum octo denariorum necnon viginti solidos ultro de
incremento prout per easdem Literas nostras Patentes,
relacione adinde habita, plenius apparet, Quas quidem Litteras nostras
Patentes ac cetera premissa superius mencionata cum pertinenciis
ad1 tota jus statum titulum interesse et terminum annorum adhuc
venturorum de et in premissis predictis prerecitata dilectus subditus
noster Randulphus Dod armiger per debitam juris formam ac suffi-
cientern conveianciam in lege modo habens et gaudens nobis sursum-
reddidit et restituit cancellanda ea tamen intentione quod Nos has
Litteras nostras Patentes et aliam dimissionem nostram de premissis
in forma sequenti facere et concedere dignaremur, Quamquidem
sursum redditionem acceptamus et allocamus per presentes. Sciatis
igitur quod Nos tarn pro et in consideracione sursum-redditionis pre-
dicte quam ex gratia nostra speciali certa scientia et mero motu nostris
Ac pro diversis aliis bonis causis et considerationibus nos ad presens
moventibus de avisamento dilecti et fidelis consanguinei et consiliarii
nostri Arthuri Comitis Essex Ac etiam dilectorum et fidelium Lawrencii
Hyde armigeri, Johannis Ernie militis consiliarii nostri ac Cancellarii et
subthesaurarii Curie Scaccarii nostri, Edwardi Deering Barroneti et
Sydnei Godolphin armigeri Commissionariorum Thesaurarii nostri
Tradidimus, concessimus et ad firmam dimisimus ac per presentes pro
1 Error for ac.
APPENDIX II 189
nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris tradimus concedimus et ad
firmam dimittimus prefato Thome Dod generoso totum illud predictum
Hundredum nostrum de Wirehall [etc. as in Carter s lease}. Exceptis
tamen semper et Nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris omnino
reservatis, [etc. as in Carter s lease] Habendum tenendum et gaudendum
Hundredum predictum ac cetera premissa superius per presentes
dimissa seu dimitti mencionata cum eorum juribus membris libertatibus
et pertinenciis universis (exceptis preexceptis) prefato Thome Dod
generoso executoribus et assignatis suis a festo Annunciationis beate
Marie Virginis ultimo preterito ante datam harum literarum nostrarum
Patentium usque ad finem termini et per terminum triginti et unius
annorum extunc proximo sequentium et plenarie complendorum.
Reddendo inde annuatim Nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris
triginta unum solidos et octo denarios legalis moneti Anglic necnon
viginti solidos comsimilis monete Anglic prout antea responsum in toto
quinquaginta unum solidos et octo denarios per annum ad Receptam
Scaccarii nostri heredum et successorum nostrorum Westmonasterii
seu ad manum vicecomitis Comitatus predicti ad festa sancti Michaelis
Archangeli et Annunciationis beate Marie Virginis per equales porciones
solvendos durante termino predicto Et predictus Thomas Dod pro se
heredibus executoribus et assignatis suis convenit et concedit [etc. as
in Carter's lease}. Proviso semper quod et contigerit [etc. as in Carter's
lease}. In cujus rei etc.
(Signed) L. HYDE.
J. ERNLE.
ED. DERING.
S. GODOLPHIN.
Examinatur per Ro. Croke Clericum Pipe.
[Endorsed] Teste etc. vicesimo quinto die Novembris
Anno Regni Regis Caroli secundi
Tricesimo primo. mdclxxix.
190 APPENDIX II
No. 12
Queen Anne's Lease to John Scorer, 1704
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 3801.)
Cestria. Dimissio REGINA omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Sciatis quod
facta Johanni nos tarn pro et in consideracione reddituum et conven-
Scorer generoso cionum inferius mencionatorum et expressorum ex
in fiducia pro parte dilecti subditi nostri Johannis Scorer generosi
Johanne Glegg executorum et assignatorum suorum reddendorum et
filio Edwardi performandorum quam per avisamentum predilecti et
Glegg de Hun- perquamfidelis Consiliarii nostri Sidney Domini Godol-
dredo de Wirehall phin summi Thesaurarii nostri Anglic ac dilecti et
cumpertinentiisin fidelis Consiliarii nostri Henrici Boyle armigeri Can-
comitatu predicto cellarii et Subthesaurarii Curie Scaccarii nostri Tradi-
habendum a festo dimus concessimus et ad firmam dimisimus ac per
Annunciacionis presentes pro nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris
beate Marie Vir- tradimus concedimus et ad firmam dimittimus prefato
ginis 1710 pro Johanni Scorer (in fiducia pro Johanne Glegg filio
termino xxv an- Edwardi Glegg generosi executoribus et assignatis
norum reddendo suis) totum illud Hundredum de Wirehall \etc. as in
per annum Lf last lease] Exceptis tamen semper [etc. as before] Que
Viijd. premissa superius dimissa sic dimissa fuerunt Thome
Dod generoso per literas patentes Domini nuper Regis
Caroli Secundi [reciting them'] Habendum tenendum et gaudendum
predictum Hundredum de Wirehall cum pertinentiis quibuscunque ac
cetera omnia et singula premissa superius dimissa seu dimitti mencionata
cum eorum pertinentiis universis (exceptis preexceptis) prefato Johanni
Scorer executoribus administratoribus et assignatis suis (in fiducia pro
dicto Johanne Glegg filio Edwardi Glegg executoribus et assignatis
suis) a festo Annunciationis beate Marie Virginis quod erit in anno
Domini millesimo septingentesimo decimo (quo tempore terminus in
dictis leteris [sic] patentibus superius recitatus vel mencionatus ex-
piraturus est) usque ad finem termini et pro et durante termino viginti et
quinque annorum extunc proxime sequentium et plenarie complendorum
APPENDIX II 191
et finiendorum. Reddendo et solvendo inde annuatim nobis heredibus
et successoribus nostris annualem redditum sive summam quinquaginta
et unius solidorum et octo denariorum legalis monete Anglie ad receptam
Scaccarii nostri heredum et successorum nostrorum Westmonasterii seu
ad manum receptoris nostri premissorum pro tempore existentis ad
festa sancti Michaelis Archangel! et Annunciationis beate Marie
Virginis per equales porciones durante toto termino superius concesso
Ac predictus Johannes Scorer pro se heredibus executoribus admini-
stratoribus et assignatis suis convenit et concedit [etc. as before].
Quodque si aliquo tempore imposterum durante residue termini
adhuc venturi in dictis leteris \sic\ patentibus domini nuper Regis
Caroli secundi superius mencionati apparebit quod aliquis alius vel
aliqui alii (preter prefatus Johannes [stc] Scorer prout executorem
ultimi voluntatis et testamenti Edwardi Glegg superius nominati) habe
vel habent aliquod ius sive titulum ad medietatem seu aliam partem
premissorum virtute alicujus assignacionis sub dictis literis patentibus
superius mencionatis quod tune prefatus Johannes Scorer executores
administratores vel assignati sui super demanda assignabit vel assig-
nabunt tali persone sive personis similem partem premissorum pro
termino superius per presentes concesso tali persona sive personis
solventibus ratam et proportionem suam feodorum et expensarum per
prefatam Johannem Scorer erogatorum et expenditorum in obtencione
harum literarum nostrarum patentium et proporcionem suam redditus
superius reservati et performando convenciones in eisdem contentas
Proviso tamen semper quod si contigerit [etc.] In cujus rei etc.
GODOLPHIN.
H. BOYLE.
Examinatur per Antonium Anderson Clericum Pipe deputatum.
John Scorer — transcriptum.
[Endorsed] Teste summo Thesaurario Anglie apud
Westmonasterium duodecimo die
Decembris anno regni Regine Anne
tertio. 1704.
192 APPENDIX II
No. 13
George II.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1734
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 4373.)
County Palatine THE King to all to whom etc. Greeting. Know yee
of Chester. A that wee as well for and in Consideration of the yearly
demise to John rent in and by these presents reserved and of the pro-
Glegg Esquire of viso's and agreements herein conteyned, As also by and
the Custody of with the advice of our Right trusty and well beloved
the Hundred of Councellor Sir Robert Walpole Knight of the most
Wirehall in the noble order of the Garter first Commissioner of our
said County and Treasury of Great Britain and Chancellor and under
of the Courts and Treasurer of our Exchequer and of our trusty and well
other perquisites beloved George Dodington Esquire Sir George Oxenden
there To hold Baronet William Clayton Esquire and Sir William
from Lady Day Yonge Knight of the Bath and Baronet Comissioners
one thousand of our said Treasury Have Demised Granted and to
seven hundred farm letten and by these presents for our Self our heirs
and thirty five for and successors Do Demise Grant and to farm lett unto
twenty nine years John Gegg [sic] Esquire The farm or Custody of all
at the yearly rent that our hundred of Wirehall with its rights members
of fifty one shil- and appurtenances whatsoever in our County Palatine
lings and eight of Chester and all those Certainties or certain yearly
pence. rents to the said Hundred or to us in right of the said
Hundred payable belonging or apperteyning And also
all and all manner of Courts Leet Views of Frank pledge together with
the perquisites and profits of the same And also all fines and amercia-
ments made sett or imposed in the Courts of Sheriffs Turn and Hundred
Court within the said Hundred and suit to the said Court or Courts
And also all Releifs Eschaeats Law Dayes Courts Assises of Bread and
Wine Beer and Ale Waifes Estrays Goods and Chattels of Felons and
Fugitives Felons of themselves persons put or to be put in exigent and
of persons Condemned or Outlawed Tolls Customs Deodands Rights
Jurisdictions priviledgesprofittsComodities Advantages and Emoluments
APPENDIX II 193
whatsoever to the said Hundred belonging or in any wise apperteyn-
ing Excepting nevertheless and always reserving to us our heirs and
successors out of this our present Grant and Demise all Fines Issues
and Amerciaments yearly and from time to time arising growing or
renewing in any of our Court or Courts of Record (other than and
beside the said Hundred Court) or before our Justices at the Assises
Justices of the Peace or Clerk of the Market or any of them for the
time being together with full and free liberty power and authority by
our Officers or servants of leving and collecting all and every the said
Fines Issues and Amerciaments from time to time within the Hundred
aforesaid Which said Hundred and premisses hereby demised were lately
demised to Peter Storer [sic] gentleman in trust for the said John Glegg
his Executors and assignes by Letters Patent of her late Majesty Queen
Anne under the Seal of her Exchequer bearing Date at Westminster
the twelfth day of December in the third year of her reigne To Hold
(except as in the said Letters Patent were excepted) to the said Peter
Storer his Executors Administrators and assignes in trust as aforesaid
from the Feast of the Anunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the
year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ten for the term of
twenty five years from thence next following and fully to be compleat
and ended at and under the yearly rent of fifty one shillings and
eightpence as in and by the said Letters Patent or the Inrollment
thereof may more fully and at large appear To have hold and enjoy
the said Hundred of Wirehall and all and singular the premisses in and
by these presents granted and Demised or meant mentioned or in-
tended to be granted and Demised with their and every of their Rights
members and appurtenances whatsoever (except as herein is before
excepted) unto the said John Glegg his Executors Administrators
and assignes for during and untill the full end Term and Time of
twenty nine years to Comence and be computed from the twenty fifth
day of March which will be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and thirty five (at which time the said Term of twenty five
years granted to the said Peter Storer in trust as aforesaid will end
and expire) and from thence forth next following and fully to be com-
pleat and ended Rendering and paying therefore yearly to us our heirs
N
194 APPENDIX II
and successors the yearly rent or sum of Fifty one shillings and eight
pence of lawfull money of Great Britain as hath been heretofore re-
served and paid for and out of the said premisses the said rent to be
paid at the Receipt of our Exchequer at Westminster or to the handes
of our Receiver of the said premisses for the time being at or upon the
Feasts or Feast days of Saint Michael the Archangel and the Anuncia-
tion of the Blessed Virgin Mary in every year by even and equall half
yearly portions or payments during the said whole term of twenty nine
years in and by these presents granted as aforesaid the first payment
thereof to begin and be made at or upon the said Feast of Saint
[Michael] the Archangel in the said year One thousand seven hundred
and thirty five And the said John Glegg for himself his Heirs Executors
Administrators and Assignes Doth Covenant promise grant and agree
to and with us our heirs and successors by these presents that he they
or some or one of them within the space of three years next after the
commencement of the said Term hereby granted and so afterwards in
every seventh year during the said whole Term shall and will make and
deliver or cause and procure to be made and delivered to our Auditor
of the said County Palatine of Chester or his sufficient Deputy for the
time being a True and perfect extract Rentale or particular of all the
Rents and profits of the said Hundred and premisses fairly ingrossed
in Parchment to remain for our future Service and Benefit Conteyning
as well the Names of all the several towns villages and hamletts of and
within the Libertyes and Franchises of the said Hundred as the names
and places [of] abode of all the severall Tenants Inhabitants and persons
within the said Hundred by or from whom the said rents and profits
and every of them are may or shall be paid or shall or may from time
to time severally become due or payable to the said John Glegg his
executors administrators and assignes by vertue of these presents or
anything herein conteyned Provided always that all and every assigne-
ment and assignements which shall or may at any time hereafter be
made of these our Letters Patent or of the said premisses herein and
hereby granted and Demised shall be inrolled before our Auditor of the
said County Palatine of Chester for the time being within the space of
six months next following after the Date of every such assignment
APPENDIX II 195
respectively or therewise [stc] for want or on default of such Inrollment
every such assignement shall be void or of no effect Provided also that
if the said yearly Rent or Sum of fifty one shillings and eight pence in
and by these presents reserved as aforesaid or any part thereof shall
happen to be in arrear and unpaid by and During the Space of sixty
Dayes next after either or any of the said Feasts or Feast Dayes at or
upon which the same ought to be paid as aforesaid or if these our Letters
Patent shall not be inrolled before our said Auditor of the County
aforesaid and a minute or Docquett thereof entred in the Office of our
Surveyor Generall of our Land Revenue for the time being within the
Space of six months next ensuing the date of these presents that then
and from thenceforth in any such case respectively or on any such Default
this our present Grant and Demise shall and may be and be accounted
null void and of no force or effect Any thing in these presents Contained
to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. In witness etc.
R. WALPOLE.
GEO. DODINGTON.
WM. CLAYTON.
Examined by Robt. Gardner Dep. Clerke of the Pipe.
[Endorsed] Witness etc. at Westminster the third day
of April in the Vijth year of the reign
of King George the second. 1734.
No. 14
George II.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1759
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 5099.)
County Palatine GEORGE the Second by the Grace of God of Great
of Chester. A Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the faith
Demise to John and so forth To all to whom these our Letters Patent
Glegg Esquire of shall come Greeting Know ye that we for and in
196 APPENDIX II
all that Hundred Consideration of the Yearly Rent herein after reserved
of IVirehall with and of the Covenants Conditions and Agreements
its Rights Mem- herein contained And also by and with the Advice of
bers and Appur- our dearly beloved Cousin and Councellor Thomas
tenances and all Holies Duke of Newcastle, Knight of the most noble
yearly Rents to Order of the Garter, and first Commissioner of our
said Hundred be- Treasury of Great Britain, and of our trusty and well
longing and other beloved Henry Bilson Legge Esquire Chancellor and
the Premises and under Treasurer of our Exchequer, Robert Nugent
Perquisites there- Esquire, William Earl of Besborough, and James
unto appertain- Grenville Esquire Commissioners of our said Treasury
ing in the County Have Demised Granted and to Farm letten and by
aforesaid To these presents for ourself our Heirs and Successors
Hold from the Do Demise Grant and to Farm let unto John Glegg
Fifth Day of Esquire All that Hundred of Wirehall [etc. as in last
April One Thou- lease] Excepting nevertheless and always reserving
sand Seven Hun- [as before'} Which said Hundred and Premises are
dred and Sixty Parcel of the Possessions of the Revenues of our
Four for a term Crown of England and were Demised to John Glegg
of Twenty five Esquire by us by our Letters Patent [reciting the last
Years at the lease~\ To Have Hold and enjoy the said Hundred and
yearly Rent of Premisses above mentioned with their and every of
£ s. d. their Rights Members and Appurtenances whatsoever
ij. xj. viij. (Except as before Excepted) to the said John Glegg
his Executors Administrators and Assigns from the
Fifth day of April which will come and be in the year of our Lord One
Thousand Seven hundred and Sixty-four (when and at which Time
according to the New Style or Method of Computation of Time now
used the above Recited Term of Twenty nine years will end and
expire) for during and untill the full end and Term of Twenty five
Years from thenceforth next ensuing and fully to be compleat and
ended Rendering and paying therefore Yearly and every Year to us
our Heirs and Successors for and out of the said Demised Premises
the Yearly Rent or Sum of Fifty one shillings and Eight Pence of law-
ful money of Great Britain [etc. as before] And the said John Glegg for
APPENDIX II 197
himself his Heirs Executors Administrators and assigns Doth covenant
Promises grant and Agree [to deliver a Schedule, etc., as before and\
that he the said John Glegg his Executors Administrators or Assigns
at the end or other Determination of the said Term shall and will
Peaceably and quietly leave surrender and yield up the said hereby
demised premises to us our Heirs and Successors. [Proviso for
enrolment and in default of payment of rent, etc., as before'] In witness
whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patent, Witness
our above named right trusty and well beloved Commissioners of our
Treasury aforesaid at Westminster the Thirtieth Day of March In the
Thirty second year of our Reign One thousand seven hundred and
fifty nine.
H. B. LEGGE.
R. NUGENT.
BESSBOROUGH.
J. GRENVILLE.
To pass without fine.
Ed. W. Woodcock deputy Clerk of the Pipe.
[Endorsed] County Palatine of Chester.
A demise to John Glegg Esquire.
Dated 3<Dth March 1759.
No. 15
Assignment of the Hundred of Wirral to John Glegg, 1768
(ENROLLED LAND REVENUE, VOL. xvi.)
Assignment from INDENTURE made the 6th August 1768 between
Frances Glegg Frances Glegg of Great Neston in the County of Cheshire
widow to John widow and relict of John Glegg late of Great Neston
Glegg Esquire of Esquire deceased of the one part and John Glegg of
the Hundred of Irby in the said County Esquire, son and heir of the
Wirehall with the said John Glegg on the other part [Reciting the lease
appurtenances. 0/1 759, the death of John Glegg and probate of his
198 APPENDIX II
will, and agreement to assign. ASSIGNMENT in consideration
of i os. of All the Hundred of Wirehall etc. with usual Covenants
and indemnity],
FRANCES GLEGG.
JOHN GLEGG. .
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of : —
Edward Wrench.
Sarah Wrench.
Inrolled 9th November 1768.
No. 16
George III.'s Lease to John Glegg, 1786
(PIPE OFFICE, CROWN LEASES, No. 6012.)
County Palatine GEORGE the Third by the Grace of God of Great
of Chester. A Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the faith
Demise to John and so forth To all to whom these our Letters Patent
Glegg Esquire of shall come Greeting Know ye that we for and in con-
the Hundred of sideration of the Yearly Rent hereinafter reserved and
Wirehall with its of the Covenants Conditions and Agreements herein
rights, members contained and also by and with the advice of our right
and appurten- trusty and well beloved William Pitt First Commissioner
ances in the said of our Treasury of Great Britain and Chancellor and
County Palatine Undertreasurer of our Exchequer and of our trusty
To hold for a Re- and well beloved John Buller Senior James Graham
versionary Term Esquire (commonly called Marquis of Graham) Edward
of 27 years Jrom James Eliot and John Aubrey Esquires Commissioners
the $th day of of our said Treasury Have Demised Granted and to
April 1789 At Farm Letten And by these presents for Ourself our
the yearly rent of Heirs and Successors Do Demise Grant and to Farm
£2, us, Sd. To Lett unto our beloved subject John Glegg of Neston in
pass without Fine, our County of Chester Esquire All that the Hundred
of Wirehall \etc. From this point onwards this Lease
is, mutatis mutandis, the same as the last.] To have hold and enjoy
APPENDIX II 199
the said Hundred and all and singular other the premises hereinbefore
mentioned to be hereby demised with their and every of their rights
members and appurtenances (except as hereinbefore is mentioned to be
excepted) unto the said John Glegg his Executors Administrators and
Assigns from the Fifth day of April which will be in the year of our
Lord One Thousand seven hundred and eighty nine (at which time the
said term of Twenty five years in and by the said recited Letters Patent
of our said late royal Progenitor Granted of and in the same premises
will end and expire) for and during and unto the full End and Term of
Twenty seven years in reversion from thenceforth next ensuing and fully
to be complete and ended Rendering and paying therefore [£2, us. 8d.
etc. as before.] And the said John Glegg for himself his heirs Exe-
cutors and Administrators doth covenant [etc. with the same clauses as
before^ In Witness whereof We have caused these our Letters to be
made patent. Witness our above named right trusty and well beloved
Commissioners of our Treasury aforesaid at Westminster the eighth day
of April in the Twenty sixth year of our Reign One thousand seven
hundred and eighty six.
W. PITT.
ED. J. ELIOT.
JOHN AUBREY.
No. 17
The Crown Grant of the Hundred of Wirral to John
Williams, 1820
(ENROLMENT BOOKS, LAND REVENUE, VOL. xvm. FOL. 35.)
By the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests and Land
Revenues.
THESE are to certify that in pursuance of a Warrant from the Right
Honourable the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 8th. day of
February 1820, William Dacres Adams and Henry Dawkins Esqrs.,
two of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods Forests and Land
Revenues for and on behalf of the King's Most Excellent Majesty, have
200 APPENDIX II
contracted and agreed with John Williams of Liverpool in the County
of Lancaster Esquire, for the sale to the said John Williams of ALL that
the Hundred of Wirehall with its rights members and appurtenances
whatsoever, in the County Palatine of Chester and all those certainties
or certain yearly rents to the said Hundred, or to His Majesty in right
of the said Hundred, belonging or appertaining; And also all and all
manner of Courts Leet, Views of Frankplege, together with the per-
quisites and profits of the same ; And also all fines or amerciaments
made set or imposed in the Courts of Sheriffs Turn and Hundred
Court within the said Hundred, and Suit to the said Court or Courts,
and also all reliefs, escheats, law days, Courts, Assizes of Bread and
Wine Beer and Ale, Treasure Trove, Waifs, Wrecks, Estrays, Goods
and Chattels of Felons, Fugitives, Felons of themselves, persons put
or about to be put in exigent, and of persons condemned or outlawed,
Tolls, Customs, Deodands, Royal Fish, Rights, Jurisdictions, Privileges,
Profits, Commodities, Advantages and Emoluments whatsoever, to the
said Hundred belonging, or in any wise appertaining And the reversion
and reversions, remainder and remainders, of all and singular the said
premises and every part and parcel thereof, (a) Excepting nevertheless
and always reserving to His Majesty his heirs and Successors all Fines
Issues and Amerciaments yearly and from time to time arising growing
or renewing in any Court or Courts of Record (other than and beside
the said Hundred Court) or before the Justices at the Assizes Justices
of the Peace or Clerk of the Market or any of them for the time being
together with full and free liberty power and authority by His Majesty's
Officers or servants of levying and collecting all and every the said
Fines Issues and Amerciaments from time to time within the Hundred
aforesaid (b) Which said Hundred and premises are parts of the posses-
sions and land revenues of or belonging to the Crown within the survey
of the Exchequer in England, and were last demised by His late
Majesty King George III. by letters patent under the Seal of the Court
of Exchequer bearing date the 8th. day of April 1786. to John Glegg
of Neston in the County of Chester, Esquire, to hold, except as therein
was excepted, for a then reversionary term of twenty-seven years from
the 5th. April 1789 at a yearly or annual rent (c) of Two pounds eleven
APPENDIX II 201
shillings and eight pence (d] payable as therein mentioned, which term
expired on or about the 5th. day of April 1816, at or for the price or
survey of Two hundred and thirty (e) pounds of lawful money of Great
Britain to be paid by the said John Williams into the Bank of England,
and carried to the account of the Commissioners of His Majesty's
Treasury, and from and immediately after the payment of the said sum
in manner aforesaid and the enrolment of this Certificate and the
receipt for the said purchase money in the Office of the Auditor of the
Land Revenue for the County aforesaid, and thenceforth for ever the
said John Williams and his heirs and assigns shall be judged deemed
and taken to be in the actual seisin and possession of the said premises
so by him purchased and shall hold and enjoy the same peaceably and
quietly and in as full and ample a manner to all intents and purposes
as His Majesty, his heirs and successors might or could have held or
enjoyed the same, (excepting as hereinbefore is excepted). By force
and virtue of An Act of Parliament passed in the 56th. year of the
reign of His Majesty King George the Third (Cap. 115) intituled
An Act for ratifying the purchase of the Claremont Estate, and
for settling the same as a Residence of Her Royal Highness
the Princess Charlotte Augusta, and His Serene Highness Leopold
George Frederick Prince of Cobourg of Saalfield. Given under the
hands of the said Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods Forests and
Land Revenues, the 8th. day of April 1820.
WM. DACRES ADAMS.
HENRY DAWKINS.
Two of the Commissioners of His Majesty's
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
Witness to the signing by the above named
William Dacres Adams and Henry Dawkins.
JAMES PILLAR,
Secretary in the Land Revenue Department.
(a) The words from (a) to (6) and from (c) to (d) are omitted from the copy in
Mortimer's "History of Wirral."
(e) .£500 in Mortimer.
202 APPENDIX II
Received the 8th. day of April 1820 of and from the above named
John Williams the sum of Two hundred and thirty pounds of lawful
money of Great Britain being the consideration money expressed in
the above written certificate.
Witness my hand
For the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,
T. TRIQUET, Cashier.
£230. o. o.
Inrolled the loth, day of April 1820.
INDEX
NAMES AND PLACES
ADAM, Henry, 166
Adams, William Dacres, 199, 201
Albany, Duchess of, 91 n
Alcock, Elizabeth, 156
Aleyn, William, 169
Almore, Richard, 167
Anderson, Antony, 191
Arrow, 78
Ashfield House, 82
Ashley, Lord, 185, 187
Aubrey, John, 198, 199
BACKFORD, 57, 63 «, 65, 77, 167
Bacon, V.-C., 158
Bailey, Mr. Justice, 97
Bampton, 46
Barker, John le, 56, 165
Barton, Richard, 137 n
Bates, Sir P. E., 127
Baumvill, Robert, 42, 45, 165
Bebington, 93, 96, 103, 113, 114
Higher, 78
Nether, 13, 141
James, 65, 66, 68, 171, 172, 179
John de, 45 n
Richard, 65, 171
Robert de, 40
William, 167
Bebynton (see Bebington)
Beckett, Capt, 125 «, 132 n
Bell, 154
Bell, Agnes, 108
Benet, John, 166
Benton, Richard de, 165
Berch, William le, 31
Bertles, Thos., 79
Bessborough, Earl of, 196, 197
Beston, Hugh, 95
Bird, Henery, 79
Birkenhead, 97, 102, 109, 112, 116, 118,
119, 126, 127, 137 n
Birkenhead Advertiser, 146 n
Birkenhead and Chester Railway, 115
Dock, 137 n
Deborah, 77
Edward, 77
Frances, 77
Prior of, n, 12, 94 »
Ralph, 65
Thomas, 77
Birmingham, Court of, 85
Black Horse Inn, 119
Blacon, 94
Bloreheath, 62
Bolde, Richd., 57
Thomas de, 47 n
Bowland, John, 170
Boyle, Henry, 190, 191
Brescy, Roger de, 41
Bridge Trafford, 70, 71, 181
Brocklebank (T. & J.), 121-3
Bromborough, 21, 137 n
Pool, I37»
203
204
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Bromburgh, William, 169 (see Brum-
burgh)
Brome, Roger, 166
Broom, Margaret, 41
Roger del, 42, 48, 165
William del, 40, 41, 164
Broome, Henry del, 166
Broun, William le, 164
Broune, Thomas, 56, 166
Brown, John, 120
Broxton, 9, 46 n, 57, 65, 162, 164, 165
Brumburgh, Hugh de, 53, 165, 177
John, 62
Brunswick Road, 141
Bruyn, Henry le, 41, 42, 43, 48, 164, 177
Bryde, Robert, 167, 168
Bucklow, 46 n, 76 n, 82,95, 100 n, 161,
162, 163, 165, 173
Bulkyleigh, Robert de, 26
Buller, John, sen., 198
Burghley, Baron, 180
Burton, 64, I37«
Bushell, Christopher, 127-8, 130, 140
CALDAY, John, 169
Caldy, 72 n, 76, 78, 134 n, 137
Hundred of, 134, 137 n
Capenhurst, 78, 80, 165
Capesthorne, 32 n
Carnarvon Castle, 39
Carter, John, 73, 74, 75, 173, 185
Chaloner, John le, 166
Richard le, 167
Charlotte, Princess, 91, 201
Chatterton, Ellen 155
Chauntrell, William, 57
Chester, 10, 46, 56, 137
Abbot of, 21, 46 (see St. Werburgh)
Castle, 45, 46, 48, 62, 95
Fair, 128
Port of, 45, 64
Chesworth, Mr., 113
Cholmondeley, 57
Chorleton, Henry de, 39, 161, 162, 175,
176
Church of Holy Cross, 137
Claremont, 90, 91, 201
Clark, Geo., senr., 118
Clarke, Archdeacon, 96
Clatterb ridge, 122-3, I24
Clayton, William, 192, 195
Clerc, Robert le, 45 n
Clive, Lord, 91 n
Clyf, Henry del, 166
Cobourg, Prince of, 91, 201
Coghull, Edmund de, 40
Coleridge, Sir J. D., 154
Coly, Henry, 37, 40, 42, 54, 162, 163, 165
John, 45 n
Richard, 54
Thomas, 54, 165
Commins, Dr., 145
Congleton, 31 n
Congreve, W. W., 137 n
Connah's Quay, 137 n
Conway, 45
Cornifer, Matthew le, 56
Croke, Ro., 189
Cross, Thomas, 126
Cristelton, Robert, 170
DANSON, John, 172
Danyers, Thomas, 175
Davenport, 20, 32 n
Dawkins, Henry, 199, 201
Deane, Dr., 154
Dee, i, 53, 64, 94, 95, 119, 132, 133, 137 «,
158
Deering, Sir Ed., 188, 189
Delamere, iqn, 56
Denbigh, 52, 75
Denfrencluyt, 52
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
205
Denhall, 64
Denwall, John, 167
Denys, Thomas, 40, 165
Derby, Earl of, 46
Dieulacres, 13
Dobbin, Mr., 115
Dod, Randle, 75, 173, 188
Thomas, 75, 76, 173, 187, 189, 190
Dodd, Catherine, 159
Dodington, George, 192, 195
Dokynton, John de, 48
Doo, Hugh, 167, 168
Dunham, 14
Dunham Massy, 19 n
Dutton, William, 159
Dyffryn-clwyd, 52
Dykynson, Henry, 167
EASTHAM, 21, 57, 96, 132, 137 «
Eddisbury, 27 n, 46 », 60, 65, 95, 164,
165, 166, 169, 172, 178 n
Edge, 75
Edmondson, Whittaker, 117, 118, 131,
132
Edward, Earl of Chester, 1 1
Edwards, David, 89
Egerton, Sir Philip, 103
Egremont Ferry, 137 n
Eliot, E. J., 198, 199
Ernie, Sir J., 188, 189
Errington, Richard, 137/2
Essex, Earl of, 188
Euyas, Philip, 161
FAIRRIE, Wm., 59, 167, 168
Fernyhough, 118
Field, Thomas, 113, 116, 117
Fisher, Canon, 143, 144 «, 154, 155, 156
Mr., 115
Fleet Prison, 35, 36
Fleetwood, Rev. Father, 147
Flint, 35, 36, 52, 53, 57
Fortescue, Sir John, 180
Fox, John, 167
Foxwist, Vivian, 40, 47 n, 55
Fraunceys, David, 69 n
Fullerton, Sir Jas., 71, 181, 182, 183, 184
Furness, 45
GAMLIN, Mrs., 98, 121 », 123 n, 126 n
Gardner, Robert, 195
Garner, Mrs. Ellen, 119
Thomas, 118
William, 97
Gay ton, 61, 66, 72 n, 76, 134, 179
Gelibrande, Thomas, 65, 171
Gerard, Wm. Fitz, 14
Glegg, Anne, 76
Betty, 82
Birkenhead, 80 n, 83, 174
Deborah, 77
Edward, 76, 77, 173, 190, 191
Frances, 77, 197, 198
Gilbert, 45 «, 47 «, 54
Jane, 76
John, 62, 66, 76, 77, 78, 82, 135,
173, 174, 179. 190, I92» 193. 194,
195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
John Baskervyle, 133, I37«
Thomas, 62, 65, 66
Sir William, 76
William, 72 n, 77
Glendower, Owen, 52, 53
Gloucester, Duke of, 46
Godolphin, Sidney, 188, 189, 190, 191
Goodfellow, John, 56, 165
Goss, Alex. (Bishop), 138, 139, 144, 145,
155, I56«
Grace, Robert, 106-114, 125, 126, 131,
132, 134, 153
Graham, Marquis of, 198
206
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Greasby, 80 n
Great Crosshall St., 137
Green Lane, 115
Green, Margaret, 159
Grenville, James, 196, 197
Grosvenor, Robert le, 43
Guilden Sutton, 9
Guille, Nich., 184
H ALTON, 19 n
Harbord, Sir Charles, 72
Hare, William, 56, 166
Hargrave, 14
Harper, Richard le, 166
Harris, Edward, 184
Hatherton, 31
Hawarden, 52
Hayne, John, 165
Hazelwall, 53
Hebson, John, 168
Hemlingford, 85, 101 n, 130 n
Heswall, 53
Hill, 153
Elizabeth, 79
Hinderton, 112, 114, 127
Hobson, John, 167
Hodson, Elliott, 120
Hog, John, 48
Hogh, Thos. del, 45 «, 65
Holden, John de, 45 n
Thomas, 57, 166
Hole, Roger, 64, 170
Holes, Roger, 57
Holme, John de, 165
Holyhead, 45
Hooton, 64, 78, 116, 117, 132, 137 n
William de, 41
Hopedale, 52
Hopkynsone, Robert, 45 n
Houghton, James, 137 n
Hoult, Joseph, 125
Hutton, William, 85-87
Hyde, Lawrence, 188, 189
Mr., 79
INDERWICK, Mr., 154
Inglefield, ion
Irby, 21,76, 77, Son, 197
Ireland, 44, 45, 56
Duke of, 46
Islington, 141, 145
Ithell, John ap, 65, 66, 68, 171, 172, 173,
179
JACSON, Richard, 167
Jankynson, Thomas, 166
Jevansone, John, 57, 167
John Scot, Earl of Chester, 1 1
Jones, Jane, 105
Sarah, 105
KARSLAKE, Sir John, 154
Kelly, Alex., 125
Kesty (see Knysty)
Kingsley, 56
Knowesley, John de, 167
Knysty, William, 62, 64, 170, 171
LANCASTER, Duchy of, 153, 156, 157
Henry of, 47
Landican, 78, 79
Launcelyn, Robert, 13, 14 n
William, 14 n
Leather, Joseph, 157, 158
Ledsham, 78, 79
Henry, 167
Lee, Hamond de, 168
Jane, 159
Thomas del, 45 n, 165
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
207
Legge, H. B., 196, 197
Leighton, 137 n, 167
Lichfield, Bishop of, 13
Liscard, 78, 80, 109, 120, 137 n
Litherland, Edmund, 63, 169
Henry, 169
John de, 45 n, 47 n, 49, 53
Liverpool, 45, 60, 92, 97, 100, 106, 108,
114, 120, 121, 133, 137, 138, 141, 151,
156, 157, 159, 200
Liverpool Chronicle, 126, 129 n
Courier, 1337?, 138 «, 147, 153, 154
Daily Post, 13372
Mercury, 88
Low Hill, 122
Lytel, John de, 165
MACCLESFIELD, 26, 32 n, 46 n, ioo«
serjeanty of, 20
Maddocks, Benjamin, 105
Main waring, C. K., 137^
Thomas de, 54, 165
Malpas, 20
Manchester Ship Canal, 158
Mara, forest of, 56
March, Earl of, 45
Martin, Baron, 122
Martyn, William, 166
Mascy (see Massy)
Massey (see Massy)
Massy, Alice, 7 1
Hamo de, 14 «, 45> 47 «, 48, 53> 55
Sir John, 14^,41,42,45, 48
Thomas, 62, 65
William, 7 1
Sir William, 71, 72, 173
Mather, Miss, 97
Maycok, Thomas, 165
Maykin, William, 44
Mayzowsone, Thomas, 166
M'Clelland, Mrs., 97
M'Mahon, James, 120
Meoles, Henry del, 162
John del, 47 n, 53, 55
William de, 45 n, 163
Mersey, I, 94 n, 95, 119, 133, 158
Dock Board, 119
Mill Lane, 141
Milles, Wm., 184
Mobburley, Philip, 168
Richard, 169
Robert, 168
Molyneux, Sir Thomas, 46
Molynton, John de, 44
Monks Ferry, 116
Mondret, 10
Montalt, Robert de, 15
More, Robert, 60, 169, 178
Moreton, 42, 48
James, 157, 158, 159, 174
Mrs., 108, 124, 125 n, 143, 144,
146-156
Samuel Holland, 106, 107, 108-119,
122-156 passim, 174
Mortimer, Roger, 45
Sir Thomas, 46
Mortimer's History of Wirral, 92, 105,
175, 201 n
Moston, Richard de, 48
Muir, Prof. Ramsay, 73 n
Mulenex, John, 79
NANTWICH, 31, 43 n, 46 n, 164, 169,
173
Natone, Ja., 184
Naylor, R. C., 1377*
Ness, 78, 79
Neston, 15, 64, 100, 104, 109, 117, 135,
137 «i 138, 141. 15°. *5*> J98, 200
Neston (Great), 82, 99, 105, 109, 137 n,
197
(Little), 14, 78, 79, I37«
208
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Neuton, William de, 163
Newcastle, Duke of, 196
Northwich, 43 n, 46 n, 60, 165, 173
Notes and Queries, 1 18 n
Nugent, Robert, 196, 197
O'DOWD, J., 133-7
Offlow, 1307*
Oldefield, Roger, 65, 170, 171
Orleans, 91 n
Ormeston, William, 170
Orred, Major, I37»
Overpool, 137 n
Oxenden, Sir George, 192
Oxton, 122
PARR, 65
Partridge, William, 24
Peacock, John, 93 #, 99, 100, 102, 104,
105
Penzance, Lord, 154, 155
Percy, Henry, 47
Picton, 9
Pied Bull Inn, 92
Pillar, James, 201
Pitt, William, 198, 199
Poole, 13772, 1 66
Poole family, 62 (see Pulle)
Poole, Thos., senr., 65
Potts & Co., 91
Poulton, 13, 78, 137 n
Praunson, John, 167
Prenton, 78
Prestlond, Richard de, 41, 42, 43, 44,
164, 177
Puddington, 41, 45, 48, 53, 62, 65, 71,
78, 137 n
Pugin, 137
Pulle family (see Poole)
James de, 47 », 55
Pulle, Sir John de, 39, 45 «, 47 n, 49,
53, 55
Robert de, 39, 161, 162
Pulton, William, son of Thomas de, 164
RABY, 127
Radcot Bridge, 46
Raket, Ranulph, 161, 175, 176
Randle, Earl of Chester, 12, 14
Meschines, Earl of Chester, 13
Ranford, James, 79
John, 79
Rathbone, John, 55, 165, 168
Ravenscroft, Henry de, 54
Rayner, Joseph, 142
Receiver of Wreck, 137
Redhead, Dr., 93, 96, 98, 103, 104, 114
Renton, William de, 163
Rideresplace, 56
Robison, Joseph, 79
Rock Ferry, 93, 137 n
Ross, David, 126
Rossendale, 118
Russell, Charles, 154
ST. WERBURGH, Abbot of, n, 13, 21,
46,63
Salghale wood, 56
Salwhall, William, 168
Saunders, Greenaway, 126
Saynesbury, John de, 53, 59, 165, 167,
168, 177
Thomas de, 164
Scorer, Jane, 76
John, 76, 77, 173. i°o, iQi
Seacombe, 92, 137 n
Secome, Thos. de, 167
Sefton, Earl of, 88, 89
Shotwick, I37»
Shrewsbury, Earl of, 122
,
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
209
Sill, Joseph, 120
Smith, Egerton, 88
Richard, 137 n
Thomas, 112-114, IJ7
Smyth, John, 169
Ralph, 1 68
Richard le, 45 n
Southampton, Earl of, 185, 187
Spencer, Samuel, 105-107, 109, 140 «,
174
Springfield, 142
Stanay, David de, 40, 45 «, 163, 164
Stanley, 21
Sir Thos. (Lord), 60, 62, 63, 90, 169,
178
Sir William de, 55
William de, 41, 43, 45 «, 47 «, 53,
62, 64
junior, 49
Stanyer, Charles, 159
Starkey, Geoffrey, 60, 169, 178
Stoke, 40, 40 n
Storeton, 21
Strawsen, Charles, 147
Sutton, Adam de, 20
Isabella, i8»
manor of, 21
Richard de, 31
Sir Richard, 18 n
of Malpas, 20
Swabey, Dr., 154
Taillour, Henry, 170, 171
Tarvin, 32 n
Taylor, 118
Dr. Stopford, 142, 155
Thingwall, 8, 40
Thorneton, Robert de, 167
Thornton Hough, 122, 141, 143, 151
Thurstaston, 8, 76, I37»
Tildesleigh, Thurstan de, 161
Tildesley, John de, 40, 47 n
Tollemache, Lord, 103
Tommessone, Alex., 165
Topplegh, 55
Trafford, 9
John, 66, 178
Robert, 66, 69, 172, 178
Thomas, 71
junior, 71
William, 70, 71, 73. 74, i?3, 181
Tranemoele, Wm. de, 45 n, 47 n
Tranmere, 76, 78, 79, 80, no, in, 120,
133, 137 »
Castle Hotel, 118, 120, 140
Higher, 119
Lower, 115
Trevallin, 94
Trevor, Richard, 94
Sir Thos., 71, 181-4
Triquet, T., 202
Troutbeck, Sir W., 14
Trull, Roger, 45 », 54, 165
Turfmos, Wm., 45 n
Tushingham, 55
Twys, Simon del, 43
Tyliat, John, 170, 171
Tyttelegh, Nicholas de, 41
UPTON, 9
VANBURGH, Sir John, 91 »
Venables, 57
Cuthbert, 68, 70, 73, 173, 179
WALEY, Henry, 57, 166, 167, 168
John de, 44
Thomas de, 43, 54, 165, 177
Waleys, Richard, 40
Walker, Benjamin, 101 », 130 n
2IO
INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES
Wallasey, 56, 57, 78, 79, 1377*, 165
Walpole, Sir Robert, 192, 195
Walter, Sir John, 71, 181-4
Warburton, Peter, 95
Warewyk, John de, 45 n
Warwick Street, 141
Wervin, 9
West, Mr., Q.C., 154
West Derby, 88
Kirby, 137/2
Westminster, Marquis of, 137 n
Whitby, 137 n
Whitmore, John de, 47 n, 54
William, 62
Whitoff, Thomas, 65, 170
Whityngham, Thomas, 169
Wich Malbank, 31
Wickstead, William, 184
Wilaston (see Wilaveston)
Wilaveston, 8, 9, 13/2, 15
Wilbraham, Richard, 172
Wilbram, Wm. de, 45 «, 165
Willaston, 9, 127
William Brown Street, 138, 141, 151
Williams, John, 92-98, 103, 133, 134,
174, 199, 200, 20 1, 202
" Roger," 98, 103
Samuel, 92, 97, 99, 100, 102-104,
107, 174
Wilson, John, 72
Robert, 121-3, 125
Windle Hill, 113
Witlaf, 9
Wolley, Geoffrey, 169, 170
Woodbank, 78, 79
Woodcock, E. W., 197
Wood Street, 122, 123
Woodward, James, 105
Wrench, Edward, 198
Sarah, 198
Wrexham, 56
Wylaboy, W., 165
Wyswale, Robert de, 166
YONGE, Sir Wm., 192
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
AFFEEROR, 6, 112-3
Aise de prisone, 34
Ale-taster, 117, 118, 140
Amercement, 5, 6, 13, 30, 37, 72, 175
Approvers, 22, 24, 37, 39, 63, 161
Array, 55, 65
Assize of bread and ale, 5, 12, 30, 79,
118, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200
Attainder, 30, 96, 123
Auditor, 72-3, 184
Augmentation Court, 68
Office, 68
BAIL, 34, 35, 36
Bailiff, 23, 54, 69
errant, 69 n
Baronial Serjeants, 21
Bedell, 17-24, 26, 27, 31, 33, 37, 54, 69,
161, et seq,
Bedelry, issues of, 33, 175
rents of, 37, 38, 56, 161 et seq.
Caput lupinum, 43
Caveat, 146, 152
Commissions (Special), 40, 41, 45, 49,
54, 59, 64, 65, 95
Compensation, claims for, 131-2
Compositions, 30
Conservators of peace, 47, 53
Contempt of Court, in, 125, 126, 127
Coroner, 31, 57, 96
Court-house, 104, 122, 124, 125
leet (see Leet)
Court roll, 78, 80
Courts, origin of, 2 (see Hundred Court)
County Court, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 58, 176
Acts, 103, 130
Criminal jurisdiction, 4, 5, 17, 31, 109
DEODANDS, 32, 94 «, 180, 182, 185, 192,
200
Dinners at court, 125
Distringas, 101
Domesday, 10, 12
ECCLESIASTICS, attendance of, 1 1
Ecclesiastical suits, 1 1
Encroachment, 5, 113, 115
Enrolment of leases, 42, 53, 67 (see
App. II.)
Escheator, 22, 57
Escheats, 30, 48, 180, 182, 185, 192,
200
Essoynes, 6, 72
Estrays, 32, 44, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200
Estreats, 63 n
Exchequer (Chester), 22, 41
Execution, 102
Eyre, 16, 57, 58
FARMING, laws as to, 25
system of, 22-26, 175
Fees, 36, 60, 72, 101, 119
Felons' goods, 30, 43, 56, 98, 122, 123
180, 182, 185, 192, 200 (see Waifs)
212
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Field-ale, 27 n
Filctale, 27 n
Fir ma unius noctis, 1 9 n
Fines, 5, 26, 30, 33, 63 n, 96, 111-115,
167, 176
Flotsam and jetsam, 93, 94 n
Foreshore, 119, 158
Forest charter, 20 n
eyres, 16
Serjeants, 21
Forestalling, 49
Franchises, royal, 3, 90, 91
Freeman-silver, 34, 63 n
Fulcenale, 27
GHOST, Moreton's, 148-9
Grand inquest, 58
serjeant, 17, 20, 21, 31
Gives tv a, 19 n
HEIR-AT-LAW, 153, 156, 157
High bailiff, 109
Hue and cry, 49-51
Hundred, origin and meaning, 2-3
liabilities, 49-51
officers, 4, 22, 29, 161
meeting-place, 2, 8
man, 4, 9
Hundred Court —
abolition, 129-132
abuses, 24, 29, 84-89, 96, 101,
103
costs, 72, 84, 101, 119
decline, 4 n, 7, 28, 47, 61, 84, 96
in A.-S. times, 3
in nineteenth century, 84
jurisdiction, 4, 5, 17, 31, 82, 98,
loo, 109, no
Hundred Court (continued) —
limit of jurisdiction, 4, 7, 84, 100,
101 n, 120
origin, 2
profits, 3, 4, 6, 22, 30-33, 36, 70,
102, 131
sale, 10, 89-92, 106, 107, 157, 174,
199
sittings, 6, 8, 10, 104, 109, 112, 118,
119, 120, 125, 127
specimens of cases, 120
INGROSSING, 49
JUDGERS, 5, 14, 15, 63 n, 167, 171
Jurisdiction (see Hundred Court)
Jury, 6, 48, 54, 58, 61, 78, 85,95, 112,
114, 118, 127 (see Judgers)
Justices, itinerant, 57
of peace, 7, 17, 28, 47, 61, 70, 180,
182, 185, 193, 200
LAGAN, 94 n
Law days, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200
Leases (enrolled), 175 et seq.
Leet, 46, 60, 78, 81, 109, 180, 182, 185,
192, 200
Liberties, 45, 95, 194
Lords of Hundred, list of, 161
Lordship of Hundred, 3
MANOR-HOUSE, 122, 124, 147, 149, 151,
153. 156
Manors, list of lords of, 137 n
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
213
Market, Clerk of, 70, 180, 182, 185, 193,
200
Master-mason, 57
Monasteries, dissolution of, 68
NEXT-OF-KIN, 153, 156
Notices to tenants, 147, 153
OFFICERS, list of, 161
Outlaws, 43, 48, 1 80, 182, 185, 192, 200
PALATINE franchises, 67
privileges, 47
Pardon, form of, 62
Pelf, 31,34,38, 163, 176 n
Pillory, 30, 118
Pipe, clerk of, 74, 187, 189, 191, 195, 197
Presentment, 5, 18, 23, 40, 117, 176
Prison suit, 34~36, 38, 56> 63 «, l63, l66>
176
Proclamations, 15
Future, 18, 19, 26, 27, 33, 163, 175
QUARTER Sessions, 7, 28, 58, 61
RAILWAY, seizure of, 116
Reeve, 4, 117, 131, 132
Regrating, 49
Reliefs, 30, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200
Rents, 37, 64, 66, 72 (see App. I.)
Rental of profits, 75, 184, 186, 193
Replevin, 1001
Requests, Courts of, 85, 103-4
Riot damage, 50
Royal fish, 91, 94, 95, 158, 200
SCOTALE, 27 n
Securitas pads, 63 n
Serjeants of chamber, 26
peace, 17-21, 23, 38, 163, 176
Sheriffs accounts, 22, 37, 68, 175
Act, 1887, 6 1 »
Aid, 63 n
Tourn, 4, 6, 28, 30, 60, 61, 63 «, 64,
178, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200
Shire Court (see County Court)
Sothale, 27 n
Stallage, 32, 38, 163, 176
Steward, 6, 15, 71, 72, 75, 88, 93 «, 99,
loo, 104, 109, no, 131, 132, 183
Subsidies, 23, 54
Suete de prisons (see Prison suit)
Suit and service, 5, 6, n, 12, 13, 14,
63 n, 79, 81, 101, 167, 171, 180, 182,
185, 192, 200
Summons, service of, 26, 27, 34, 176
Sunday travelling, 51
" Sweeten and pinch," 34 n
TAXATOR (see Affeeror)
Terra putura:, \gn
Thiggyng, 27
Third penny, 10
Tolls, 1 80, 182, 185, 192, 200
Townships, 3, 9, 78, 81
Treasure-trove, 5, 63 », 91, 96, 132, 159,
200
Trial of John Williams, 97
will case, 154
Tumbril, 30, 118
2I4
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
VAGA (see Felons' goods)
Vendor of bark, &c., 56
felons' goods, 22, 39
View of frankpledge, 4, 29, 30, 78, 80, 8 1,
180, 182, 185, 192, 200
WAIFS, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 161, 162, 166,
175, 176, 180, 182, 185, 192, 200 (see
Felons' goods)
Wapentake (see Hundred)
Wapentake Court (see Hundred Court)
" Waping tax," 88
War, effect of civil, 62-64
IVara, 18
Warlands, 1 8, 19, 27, 33
Weaf, 79
Will case, 1 38 et seq.
Woods and forests, Commissioners of,
90, 91, 199, 201
Wreck, 63 », 91, 93, 94,94 «, 119, 132-7,
200
THE END
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON
Edinburgh 6* London
Co.
DA Stewart-Brown, Ronald
670 The Wapentake of Wirral
C6S74
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
!iii